Tuesday, July 31, 2012

How to Make Antinomian Living Possible for the Disadvantaged

Dalrymple says that the antinomian ideals assumed by the British underclass, and the resulting moral and familial chaos, have been supported by the British welfare state.

Intellectuals propounded the idea that man should be freed from the shackles of social convention and self-control, and the government, without any demand from below, enacted laws that promoted unrestrained behavior and created a welfare system that protected people from some of its economic consequences.
Just as the IMF is the bank of last resort, encouraging commercial banks to make unwise loans to countries that they know the IMF will bail out, so the state is the parent of last resort--or, more often than not, of first resort.  The state, guided by the apparently generous and humane philosophy that no child, whatever its origins, should suffer deprivation, gives assistance to any child, or rather the mother of any child, once it has come into being.  In matters of public housing, it is actually advantageous for a mother to put herself at a disadvantage, to be a single mother, without support from the fathers of the children and dependent on the state for income.  She is then a priority; she won't pay local taxes, rent, or utility bills.
As for the men, the state absolves them of all responsibility for their children.  The state is now father to the child.  The biological father is therefore free to use whatever income he has as pocket money, for entertainment and little treats.  He is thereby reduced to the status of a child, though a spoiled child with the physical capabilities of a man: petulant, demanding, querulous, self-centered, and violent if he doesn't get his own way.  The violence escalates and becomes a habit.  A spoiled brat becomes an evil tyrant. 

Remember that this is all coming from a man with boots on the ground.  A doctor who has treated thousands of impoverished Londoners, and who has been witness to their lives and their relationship with the state.

1 comment:

  1. So relevant to our country as well. An excellent post. One of the maddening aspects of this is that it is so self-evident, so obvious, and yet political correctness limits an honest, public discussion of this problem. It is frightening to think that there is a considerable segment of the population that is totally fine with being 100% dependent on the government for sustenance. Such an attitude is devastating for the individual, and also for society at large, as Dalrymple so accurately gives an account.

    The question: do those in positions of power, who peddle off-the-chart government assistance, genuinely want to help the impoverished class, or are they content keeping them dependent so as to maintain a permanent voting block? In other words, is the final goal of the left to expand the dependent class, even if that means the devastation of culture and civilization?