One of those you have to confirm to believe, but it's real.
It's one of those news pieces - increasingly common these days - where the word absurd just doesn't do it justice. It doesn't convey the breadth of the absurdity here. I don't know if there is a proper word for describing an event that is absurd on multiple levels. Calling it a circus gets the point across, but do we have a proper adjective? Circuslike? That doesn't quite work. If there isn't a word already established to describe full-spectrum absurdity, then perhaps one should be invented. Lets touch on just some of the angles in which the absurdity of this situation really shines.
It's absurd because they're letting a refugee who had been in the country for a year sue for....any reason at all, really. The grievance threshold for allowing a refugee - by definition someone who was saved from life-threatening conditions - to quickly turn around and demand reparations from their saviors should be incredibly high. At the least, the government should have subjected the refugees to worse conditions than the hellscape that they (supposedly) escaped from. "Sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused by rescuing you from certain doom, Mrs. Rajatheepan, so here's more money than most of our citizens will see in a lifetime," say the impeccably generous British government.
It's absurd because they're letting a migrant sue them for a language barrier in their own country. The whole allegation is that the NHS couldn't properly communicate healthcare instructions to a recent migrant. Of course they couldn't! Are the technicians of Britain's social welfare services expected to be conversational in all the languages of all the shithole countries that are being welcomed into the lands so recently occupied by the Brits? Apparently so. You know, there's a reason we insist that migrants learn the languages of their host countries. Yes learning a language is difficult, but having some people learn one language is practical whereas having everyone learn lots of languages is not. "How dare we not quickly adopt your obscure foreign tongue. Please, have some money," says the not-at-all-racist British politician.
It's absurd because they actually ruled that a human mother could be so stupid that she didn't know to feed her own baby. There isn't a culture in the world so backwards that their mothers don't know how to keep their babies alive, provable by their continuing existence. We know Sri Lankans can feed a baby, because they exist. The most savage ape and the dumbest rodent all know that you feed your baby. It's the definition of being a mammal. It's the essence of Darwinism too. If you're a mammal and don't know to feed your baby, your retarded mammal DNA doesn't propagate. It's the natural way. This is a crazy precedent for anyone to sue the British government for almost any reason. "Oh you held your breath too long because no one told you not to in Pashto and you passed out? Please, take our money we have too much already," says the caring and non-judgmental British voter.
It's absurd because the entire guiding ideology of these people is not to be racist, and yet they assert - with full backing of the legal system - that anyone who isn't a white English speaker is assumed to be dumber than the most feral poo-flinging monkey. "We don't expect you to actually act human. Here, have a pile of money," says the extraordinarily condescending and self-hating British bureaucrat. This kind of ruling is not an outlier either. We've already seen plenty of cases where migrants receive little sentencing for horrendous crimes because they didn't know they weren't supposed to rape children.
The goal of this post hasn't been just to vent about the stupidity of it all (although that sure is nice). There is supposed to be a point to these things, I guess. The question to really ponder is how does this kind of exponential absurdity survive? That's the whole basis of Darwin right? You know, the guy that liberals mock conservatives incessantly for not believing in. The fit survive and propagate, the unfit do not. Very simple stuff. So how does the British system survive? Societal systems obey the same forces of natural selection as species. Well, the British aren't fit to run a shoe store. "Oh, no one told you in Somali your shoes don't fit? Here's a wad of cash" says the British Minister of Footwear. You couldn't run a company like that and you shouldn't be able to run a country. So what's the deal?
In real evolution, the fit outcompete the unfit, either because the unfit starve or are killed by the fit. Britain won't starve, thanks to modern petroleum-fueled agriculture. There's plenty of food. In a proper competitive environment, they'd be invaded. It wouldn't take an astute adversary to note that the British don't have much will to survive and would make a wonderful invasion target. There would be no Churchill urging the people to fight on the beaches. Only reminders not to shoot enemy POC or you'll be hung for racism.
There are several reasons why this kind of low-hanging fruit doesn't get picked off anymore. For one, no birth rates are high enough in the developed world to drive expansion. There's also the likelihood that Britain would be ungovernable as a vassal state. Do you think Putin is drooling to govern London with it's majority minority population all expecting full nanny-state services? No way. There's also the aspect that modern economies make war less profitable. Vladimir does better selling the western Europeans gas than he would by just nuking them all. Which brings us to the biggest reason.
Nukes. Britain has no fear of being militarily invaded. Any country that invades Britain will be nuked to smithereens. Everyone knows that. Because of nukes, US protected countries can become infinitely weak and irrational. They still won't get invaded. It doesn't matter what the Brits do because they are protected by the US nuclear umbrella. As discussed in Is it Worse to be Ruled by Yankees or by Stalin?, all this means is that there isn't much preventing Britain from complete decay. If the invasion threat existed, most of the nonsense would correct itself. There would be no room for mal-investing in illiterate foreigners who can't keep a baby alive. There would be at least some impetus for rationality, whereas today there is very little. The worst thing we can do for our allies, in the long run, is to shelter them from the world.
The liberals want to eliminate nukes from the earth. I might agree with them. What they don't realize is that the world would become a much more violent place. But we're getting to the point where that may actually be preferable to our slide into hyper absurdity.
No comments:
Post a Comment