Apparently, the Left have decided you can have too much information. MI-5 should be forced to publish their operational schedule in the Guardian, but finding out who lives in Southside, why, that's going too far. It says a lot about Liberal claims to intellectual supremacy that it's considered groundbreaking to find that people want to live with people like them.
Personally, I always like to hear academics talk about the importance of diversity. There's a certain poignancy to hearing members of a sector that may as well head job adverts with 'Only Liberals Need Apply' lecturing other people about diversity. As far as these geeks actual argument goes.....it's gone. I'm baffled if I can find what they're yapping about. We get lots of boo words like 'segregation', but if your nightmares aren't already filled with thoughts of low social cohesion, there's little here that will terrify you - and that's leaving aside the thought that an area dominated by people with shared values would surely tend to be more, not less, cohesive. Ditto, the tension between their weaseley complaints about segregation and their calls for diversity. Surely the demands for complete uniformity between communties is the very antithesis of diversity ?
Ah - that's the thing. What these people want is emphatically not either cohesion or diversity. Diverse communities would let people compare life in East Valley with that in Hillside - people might get the idea that life being better in Hillside somehow suggests that there's something healthier about the local culture than in East Valley, and such overt judgementalism would never do. What they really want is a nation of atomised individuals - people dependent on the whims of government and whatever insane social engineering project is in vogue on the day in question.
These people are trapped in the Neverland of socialism. For proof of that, look no further than the sole attempt at an actual explanation why more information is a bad thing:
Personally, I always like to hear academics talk about the importance of diversity. There's a certain poignancy to hearing members of a sector that may as well head job adverts with 'Only Liberals Need Apply' lecturing other people about diversity. As far as these geeks actual argument goes.....it's gone. I'm baffled if I can find what they're yapping about. We get lots of boo words like 'segregation', but if your nightmares aren't already filled with thoughts of low social cohesion, there's little here that will terrify you - and that's leaving aside the thought that an area dominated by people with shared values would surely tend to be more, not less, cohesive. Ditto, the tension between their weaseley complaints about segregation and their calls for diversity. Surely the demands for complete uniformity between communties is the very antithesis of diversity ?
Ah - that's the thing. What these people want is emphatically not either cohesion or diversity. Diverse communities would let people compare life in East Valley with that in Hillside - people might get the idea that life being better in Hillside somehow suggests that there's something healthier about the local culture than in East Valley, and such overt judgementalism would never do. What they really want is a nation of atomised individuals - people dependent on the whims of government and whatever insane social engineering project is in vogue on the day in question.
These people are trapped in the Neverland of socialism. For proof of that, look no further than the sole attempt at an actual explanation why more information is a bad thing:
Social scientists have long theorised that having a mix of rich and poor in a neighbourhood ultimately raises the living standards of the poorest people in the area.
That's it, that's the reason - some whiny Liberal academics have a theory. Funnily enough, I also have a theory, namely that the Academy, the wider country and social cohesion will be helped no end if we only ditch large quantities of dead weight from our nation's universities. Some may say that is harsh, but it's as least as well worked out as their theory.
We may consider the insane collectivist notions behind these peoples' theory. Should rich people be forced to live in hellholes in order to help the poor 'ultimatly' raise their living standards ? If not, why say it? But then, what theory of wealth are these people using, anyway ? Is wealth a communicable disease ? Hardly - this really is voodoo economics. In fact, we do know pretty well what causes wealth: everything the Left hates. Stay off drugs, stay in school, work at a regular job, marry and stay married. Nothing is certain, but overall folks who follow these prescriptions consistantly do better than those who don't.
No wonder the Left is so anxious try and blur the debate with thoughts of economic osmosis. When you look at what causes poverty vs what causes wealth, it's pretty obvious that they've been on the wrong side of the debate for the last forty years.
We may consider the insane collectivist notions behind these peoples' theory. Should rich people be forced to live in hellholes in order to help the poor 'ultimatly' raise their living standards ? If not, why say it? But then, what theory of wealth are these people using, anyway ? Is wealth a communicable disease ? Hardly - this really is voodoo economics. In fact, we do know pretty well what causes wealth: everything the Left hates. Stay off drugs, stay in school, work at a regular job, marry and stay married. Nothing is certain, but overall folks who follow these prescriptions consistantly do better than those who don't.
No wonder the Left is so anxious try and blur the debate with thoughts of economic osmosis. When you look at what causes poverty vs what causes wealth, it's pretty obvious that they've been on the wrong side of the debate for the last forty years.
No comments:
Post a Comment