Confession - I Don't Like Pensioners

Morning - a surprisingly early Rabbit this Sunday, hope you're all awake to read it.

Being the right age to myself remember being a 'younger person' fairly vividly, I'm aware of the perpetual demonisation of the young which is part of our society and has been for as long as I can remember. The narrative goes something like:- the youth of today are the worst ever, they're all thieves, louts and habitual drugtakers who go round pinching car stereos to feed their crack or smack habit. They're all stupid and lack respect, particularly for 'their elders' (who of course are 'entitled' to automatic and unearned respect for, er, reasons?). When GCSE results go up, it's because the tests are easier - when they don't, this is offered as 'proof' of their collective idiocy.

In short, young people can't win and I feel sorry for them.

The reverse thesis of this is applied to pensioners and the elderly, who of course did nothing more edgy and contentious than bake cookies and sit round a fire attentively listening to war stories when they were younger. If you've been led to believe that mods, rockers, hippies, skinheads and punks were all significant movements of youth who 'had their moments' then think again, as apparently these things never happened. Invented in 1994, 'the teenager' and his/her cousin 'the young adult' have been terrorising our streets for two decades now, much to the chagrin of those who remember when there was no crime, everyone doffed their cap when required and nobody swore.

There are a series of flawed assumptions at the centre of this 'old = good, young = bad' view of the world and it's worth tackling them individually. One misplaced assertion is that pensioners have 'paid into the system all their lives' and are therefore entitled to 'dignity in old age' as a result. The first thing worth pointing out is that the State pension, rather than representing the collection of something you have already paid in, is actually a ponzi scheme in which people currently of working age fund the ongoing pensions of existing claimants. There was no generation of 'noble contributors' who agreed to pay something in exchange for nothing and we shouldn't pretend that there was.

Even taken at face value, this concept of 'paying into the system all their lives' doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Many will have paid in and/or taken out intermittently and, given that welfare has been a valid career option for as long as I can remember, there will be current pensioners who never or hardly worked at all, taking advantage of quite literal 'cradle to grave' provision. The 'baby boomer' generation had free university education, grammar schools and could afford to buy their own homes in significant numbers to name but three advantages those in their 20s and 30s will not have. Then there's the future of the State pension itself, so it's worth asking...who's subsidising who here?

Next we have the depiction of the older generation as wise old sages who have 'been around the block' and should be bowed to on account of their superior life experience. Well, based on my slightly inferior life experience there is no correlation between age and wisdom - in fact it's a bit like the analysis of the cricket player who hasn't played 42 Test Matches, but the same match 42 times. Time spent on the planet is only as good as what is learned in that time, the ability to analyse one's successes and failures, rationalise and then learn the requisite lessons from them. People of all ages and generations have varying capacities for this, from quite a lot to some to absolutely none.

Perhaps the most unpleasant 'word association game' I see played with regard to older people is that with 'war heroes', military service etc. Now I grew up at a time when most of pensionable age would certainly have been around during the Blitz and World War Two, and it's certain that a great many of them fought in the conflict between 1939-45. However, someone who was 18 in 1945 would be 90 now and so nearly all of those who fought the Nazis have sadly left us (RIP). I don't begrudge a former WW2 soldier anything that they might get in acknowledgement of their efforts, but noted the anomaly of the shocking treatment of Nepalese Gurkhas by the British State over many years.

I remember a particularly cantankerous old man telling me that I should listen to him, mainly because he'd been in the army 'defending this country' before I was born. I asked him to name some of the places he'd fought in and the ex-soldier promptly rattled off a list (Suez was one of them). Look, none of the conflicts that the Uk has involved itself in since 1945 have been about 'defending this country' at all. Our 'Ministry of Defence' has actually become a Ministry of War, with young men signing up because there were parts of 'the life' that appealed to them or employment prospects were limited where they lived. I'm not knocking anyone for making that choice, but it's not 'heroic' either.

Another big green tick in the box for our elders is (apparently) that they tend to vote in higher numbers than pretty much anyone else and 'take part in the democratic process', whatever that means. Now this has less to do with pensioners themselves and is really a continuation of the dichotomy that voting = good and not voting = bad, or probably the best I've heard on that theme:- "if you don't vote then you lose your right to complain about what the government does" (so if you exercise a freedom not to vote you therefore lose your freedom to hold an opinion about 'the issues' - lovely). It's true that pensioners do turn out for elections in disproportionate volume, but it's also worth asking why.

There's an important statistic which goes a long way towards providing an answer - pensioners are the recipients of more than half of all welfare payments. This is when you add up the State pension plus all the other benefits that they're eligible for, but begs the question...if you're in receipt of so much 'free stuff' are you more or less likely than the average person to go out and vote for more 'free stuff', or at least for the retention of what you already have? Wealthy pensioners (some of whom live abroad FFS!!) remain in receipt of such perks as TV licenses, winter fuel payments and bus passes, and to suggest revisiting that with a view to taking some of it away would be political suicide.

Politicians know this, and so frequently gerrymander 'the grey vote', usually at the expense of younger people.

As long as we live in a representative and universal suffrage democracy, I suspect this problem will continue - with the campaign to reduce the voting age to 16 meeting major resistance (I actually think age is the wrong end from which to be looking at the question, but support changes that would mean some 16 year olds would get the vote, while some 61 year olds would lose it) it will always be politically advantageous to demonise and caricature the young, while depicting every last member of an 'older generation' as some 'hero next door', who fought off foreign invaders and continuously contributed to our society for over half a century, therefore justifying certain entitlements.

None of them were shirkers, lawbreakers or less than perfect in any way, apparently.

It's another problem that I suspect Sortition would provide a better response to than the representative system could ever dream of. Alas, that won't be happening in my lifetime.

Anyway, thanks for reading that and I appreciate the subject matter may be considered somewhat 'edgy' - will leave you with some music and catch you next time.

Sortition - It's Up to Us

Evening - let's stick with these snappy pieces, they seem quite popular.

Some of you will know already that I'm hardly a member of the fanclub when it comes to the concept of Representative Democracy. The system I less than affectionately refer to as RepDem is a thoroughly rotten one that invariably descends into a dismal ponzi scheme, infantilises on an industrial scale and produces bucketloads of other nasty little side-effects that we'll go into soon enough. Most people accept this analysis at least up to a point, but tend to counter it with something akin to the Churchill defence of RepDem "the worst system of government apart from all of the others". Well I'm not sure I agree with that, but we'll explain the benefits of Sortition later on.

RepDem is by definition a system which confers a false sense of rectitude on the majority view at a moment in time and can end up as little more than a legitimised form of mob rule. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it would be absolutely wrong for 51 of us to go and steal the possessions of the other 49, but RepDem basically decrees that it is morally sound for this fortunate 51 to elect representatives who will implement the theft (wholly legally I should add) on their behalf. That Democracy itself is regarded as a 'good word' by the masses means that its ability to be used as a figleaf for tyranny (with those masses as willing enablers) is very rarely if ever discussed.

This is the inevitable outcome of a process you'll have already heard referred to on these pages before as messiah-seeking. Fuelled by a demand for validation of simply 'free stuff', this search for 'the great leader' generally leads to reckless overspending and economic failure at home, the initiation of force and disastrous misadventure overseas and persistent attacks on individual freedom, be it in the economic, social or constitutional sphere. These 'messiahs' (think Blair or Obama for example) are later re-packaged as 'disappointments' who 'lied to the people' and 'let them down', thereby absolving those who voted for them (sometimes more than once) of any responsibility.

Meanwhile, it's not just the politicians within this system who degenerate into the pathetic team sport that apparently serves as a substitute for the discussion of serious ideas. We are at least quite as bad at this 'virtue signalling' bollocks and possibly quite a bit worse - simply skim-read the majority of 'topical discussions' on social media and you'll see my point. Look, if it comes to listening to a bunch of 10-watt wankers declaring 'which side' of the proverbial road they're on, well I'm sorry but I have a rather sharp set of needles that I need to stick into my eyes and be assured the task cannot wait. Meanwhile, the Toddlers of both Left and Right proceed to launch rocks at each other.

Nuance is stripped out of the issue and those suggesting the existence of it (so that'll be most readers of this site then) invariably get shot by both sides.

The 'political media' lap this fodder up, often becoming a participant in 'the game' themselves like one of those card-happy football referees playing out the career they should have had.

I mean, where would the mainstream media and its 'pundits' be without the soap opera and contrived 'drama' that RepDem gives them?

As is the case in all team sports, the players tend to become rather famous and the emergence of the 'celebrity politician' in the modern age is a natural enough, albeit pretty revolting one given the rules of the game being played. This creates a perpetual demand for 'characters' and 'showmen' in politics, which is an understandable requirement of the frontman in a rock group or lead actor in a television series, but surely should not be on the job spec for the would-be Education or Immigration minister? I'm clearly in a minority here, but I'd like those keeping things ticking over to be as boring, nondescript and uninterested in fame as possible. In fact, I don't really want to hear from them.

One of the most frequently wheeled out defences of RepDem is that through its Parliamentarians it gives ordinary citizens access to a member of its legislature. Well, hypothetically yes, but in reality most of those MPs who attempt to engage with their constituents (and many don't bother) end up as little more than social workers for the perpetually pushy and/or well-connected, while individuals with genuine issues tend to be too busy working or looking after the kids to fit their constituency surgery into the schedule. No doubt those pushy, well-connected sorts invariably love the current system as it gives them a wildly disproportionate level of influence.

Tragically, the RepDem system perpetuates 'identity politics' and gives those participating in it a degree of clout that cannot be justified through any objective lens. Politically, group advocacy is all about 'gaming the system' by forming voting blocks based on some 'point of identity', with a shopping list of demands to be extracted from would-be politicians in exchange for a significant number of votes. A form of mutual bribery that suits both sides, it invariably leads to attacks on the liberty of others, be that being forced to fund 'free stuff' for said group, or some new law being passed either offering 'special status' or forbidding the expression of contentious opinion.

Whether it's LGBT wankers or the English Defence League, wouldn't it be fantastic if our representatives could simply ignore them or, even better, tell them all to fuck off?

The good news is that if we chose them by random lot rather than a grubby quasi-barter system known as elections then they could - and I would laugh my balls off the day that happened, please bring it on. No false messiahs, no more 'showbiz for ugly people', no sad team sport played out by dismal 'ultras' trying to replicate the atmosphere of the Milan Derby or State of Origin final. No more middle class nag-hags 'gaming the system' and reducing their 'honourable' Member of Parliament to the status of Trainee Case Worker. And no more having to pander to 'identity politics' shithouses, be they of the Toddler Left or Toddler Right persuasion. Halle-fucking-lujah.

Probably the biggest thing Sortition has going for it as a system is the 'seen unseen' of it taking Utopia off the table. Once we accept that there is no Utopia, no 'magic formula' as 'messiahs' have continually had to promise us and that our rights are not more important than the rights of others, the rational case for the very existence of politicians simply evaporates. However, this means first taking responsibility - for our own role in the mess that RepDem has brought us to, for the Faustian pact we have entered into with politicians (they get 'the good life' in exchange for being 'the bad guys') and owning the consequences of what we support when it happens, both good and bad.

I suppose the question is...are we ready to step up to the plate and uplevel our Democracy? I'm not suggesting that it would be perfect - as stated previously, there is no Utopia and there will always be people who are unhappy with what is going on.

But...would it be a significant improvement on what we currently have? Absolutely.

I'm convinced that Sortition is 'the least worst system', although how we make this happen is tricky and one for another night. I appreciate politicians aren't going to take their ball home voluntarily, but we have it within our gift to 'make them redundant' if enough of us take some of the steps I've just outlined.

Anyway, I'm busy tomorrow so this was basically a replacement for what I intended to write then. There may or may not be something tomorrow night dependant on a few factors.

I'll leave you with Propaganda and catch you next time, whenever that is - thanks for reading.

Victims Opposing Institutional and Cultural Egalitarianism (VOICE) - join today!!

There now follows a public service announcement...

During the previously mentioned afternoon out my good friend Kirk and I figured that that there was something in the old saying "if you can't beat em, join 'em". We may be men of honour and principle, but in this day and age that will only take you so far - the reality in 21st century Britain is that if you want to get on in life there are precisely two ways in which you can do so. One, to put it bluntly, involves not being frightened of a bit of hard work. Alternatively, you can portray yourself as a victim of some sort of historical 'oppression' and form an advocacy group to lobby the government for handouts and special treatment.

After much deliberation, we chose the second option.

Having decided that we were victims, Kirk and I now needed a reason to explain our inate sense of being persecuted. After about ten minutes, we realised that some of our teachers in formal education were clearly believers in culturally Marxist ideas and had taught us in a way that made very little serious attempt to conceal it. This, we decided, was brainwashing, an assault on our consciences that had left us traumatised and unable to cope in the modern world. The only way to seek restitution was to form Victims Opposing Institutional and Cultural Egalitarianism (VOICE) and ensure that the cause of our fellow Voicers was fully represented.

VOICE has three basic demands, which form our reason for existing (until they are met, at which point we will simply make new demands). Firstly, there will be compulsory political studies classes at high schools up and down the country, with the content regularly reviewed for bias by the Political Information Subject Specialists (PISS). Their own institutional integrity will be overseen by the Working Arbiter for Neutrality of Knowledge (WANK). This body will hold regular meetings with VOICE, with whom their reports and findings will be shared. However, they will not be disclosed to the wider public.

The second requirement is for the State to tackle Voxphobia, which has no place in 21st century Britain. Governments of all persuasions as well as the Church of England have persecuted the Vox community over several decades, and we will not rest until a symbolic and utterly meaningless apology is made by a sanctimonious and self-seeking Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury. Voxphobia needs to be recognised as a form of prejudice, prosecutable under 'Hate Speech' legislation and regarded as an aggrevating factor when sentencing for attacks in court. Judges need to make an example of all who commit Voxphobic violence.

Our third and final demand (at least for now) is reparations. Yep, hard cash. Lots of it. All that hypnosis to 'de-program' ourselves won't pay for itself.

Without doubt the highlight of the Vox calendar is our annual NOISE festival, which takes place in towns and cities throughout the Uk. Funded by ratepayers in exchange for the closure of their local Leisure Centre, NOISE involves us stuffing a milkfloat full of the works of Karl Marx and setting the offending literature on fire. This mobile inferno then moves down the high street (whose businesses are forced to close that day on Health and Safety grounds) behind a bunch of blokes in military uniform while the onlooking crowd whoop and cheer. Those who 'don't get it' or fail to participate will be branded 'Voxphobes' and arrested for 'Hate Crimes' accordingly.

So...are YOU a victim of Institutional and/or Cultural Egalitarianism?

Were YOU suspended from school for refusing to wear a dress on 'Trans' Day?

Alternatively, do YOU want to appropriate the suffering of others at the hands of Institutional and/or Cultural Egalitarianism despite never having suffered it yourself?

Would YOU like completely unmerited levels of attention and money from arms of the State for no apparent reason?

Would YOU like to become a 'celebrity' campaigner against 'injustice', appearing in all forms of media, usually with people asking "who's that stupid cow?" afterwards?

Well, what the hell are YOU waiting for? Join VOICE today and hashtag #V2 on Twitter to register that you're a victim too.

If you've just done the #V2 thing on Twitter, or googled VOICE with a view to joining then as much as I appreciate that (actually I really don't) the joke is of course on you. Much as starting the advocacy group equivalent of Spinal Tap sounds like a laugh, I have neither the time or the inclination to deal with the utter wankstains who would think such an organisation were serious and join it. That said, a few of our tutors were decidedly 'red' in their outlook on life, of that there is absolutely no doubt. Nor was any serious attempt made at presenting both sides of arguments with equal weight and for equal lengths of time. Still, we'll file it under 'shit happens' and crack on.

The serious point is that advocacy groups (such as trade unions and any 'rights' campaign) will tell you that their principle aim is 'equality' or 'fairness' when in reality that tends to be the complete opposite of what they end up campaigning for. Where was the 'equality' or 'fairness' of Trade Unions in the 1970s and first half of the 1980s, whose leaders behaved like thugs, often using actual violence against 'scabs' and dissenting members who urged caution? How can years of inflation-busting pay rises for union members (including news print workers being in the top 2% of earners in the country) be fair on the consumer (or the taxpayer in the case of nationalised industries)?

Advocacy groups are there to look out for their own and could not give two shits about 1) what's right or wrong or 2) non-members of their own group. Unions care about their members' interests and the consumer/taxpayer can go hang. Group 'rights' campaigns will lobby for 'free stuff' or extra 'rights' for themselves and their own with zero regard for the difficulty, expense, or genuine sense of inequality this might impose on other people. If you are free to withdraw respect towards me for whatever reason or none, but I am 'forced' to respect you solely on the basis of some 'group membership' then is that not a rather Orwellian take on this whole 'equality' thing?

We're all equal, only it would seem that some are more equal than others...

What we have an objective reality about is equality before the law and a degree to which equality of opportunity exists. It goes without saying that any instance of people being deprived of basic and civil rights given to others simply on the basis of their colour, gender, sexual orientation or whatever is just plain wrong and it's actually in all of our interests to equalise the law on this level as far as is humanly possible. If we don't defend the rights of others (especially those we aren't that keen on) then we can't moan when one day it's our turn to suffer (copyright Martin Niemoller). Inequality before the law is never, ever a good thing, only an authoritarian tyrant would think otherwise.

Of course there are situations where people might have legal rights on paper that in one way or another they are actually being deprived of in reality. A good example is blacks in the Southern states of the U.S. who for many years had the legal right to vote but were being prevented from doing so by contrived (and often unlawful) practices from those who wanted to sabotage them. In this case the rights abuse owed as much to de facto lawlessness as it did to racism, aided and abetted by members of law enforcement who were Klan members themselves. When discussing rights, the rule of law, consistently and dispassionately upheld, is absolutely vital.

Once you have protected that then at least some degree of equality of opportunity takes care of itself. However, equality of outcome is harder to measure and can be explained by a whole number of factors, many of which are benign. Men and women often have different work-life balances and many women take 'career breaks' to start families, which explains the 'gender pay gap' to a significant extent. Immigrants (who make up a significant profile of any ethnic minorities measure) often take low paid jobs that our indigenous workshy can't be bothered doing. Citing sexism or racism as the sole reasons for these salary gaps is, to put it politely, an over-simplification.

Besides which, it's individuals and not groups who live lives and have unique existences. I can certainly think of a few lines of work where some of these designated 'minority groups' are distinctly over-represented. Maybe we should start an advocacy group to get a minimum number of white players into Premier League football teams? Or more heterosexuals in the arts? Of course, either suggestion would be absurd just as all group advocacy is. Ayn Rand once correctly identified a thread at the heart of all forms of collectivist thinking namely the pursuit of the unearned, a stubborn refusal to succeed or fail on one's own merits and accept the outcome.

Faced with the pressure of getting elected, politicians have to listen to these advocates, take them seriously and promise them either 'free stuff' some new 'rights' involving state legislated 'forced respect', a State apology for some historical wrong, or a change in the law. In a constitutional republic this would not happen. In a system where our representatives were chosen by random selection (sortition) rather than election, reps would be free to tell group advocates that we would be giving them exactly the level of respect they merited (i.e. none). What a dictator would do is obvious. Only representative democracy actually gives these idiots a voice (pun intended).

Advocacy groups will continue to exist as long as 'oppressed group status' is worthwhile in some way and as long as we have representatives who have little choice but to allow themselves to be lobbied by those advocates and take them seriously. Like most reasonable people I'm a passionate believer in equality before the law, no fear no favour and extending equality of opportunity as far as is possible without using coercion or force that limits the personal liberty of others. Conflating unequal outcomes with some sort of 'institutional bias' is reckless as is 'forced respect' by threat of punishment. We're all free to dislike whoever we want, for whatever reason or none.

Whether it's radical feminism, LGBT bullshit, the quite ridiculous Fathers 4 Justice or the English Defence League (a rather warped advocacy group all of its own) I refuse to demean myself by listening to this crap.

Hopefully those of you who care about liberty and the rights of the individual will be reaching for the mute button as well.

I'll be back on New Year's Eve to discuss something uncontentious like immigration, the Northern Ireland situation or Islam (wink).

Until then keep calm and here's the late Adrian Borland. RIP.