Maybe I should not do too much research. I have enough to talk about as it is.
Yet again, I started with a clear idea. In the end, not only was I not able to get to it but ended up dazed and confused by the idea storm. I just gave up for the day. Let me guide you through the experience.
I sat down to write about the special rapporteur to the UN following my outrage about a list of his ideas in a news report. What picked my interest specifically was a claim that we should not have private charities, because taking care of the poor and feeding the hungry is the governments’ job. That hit a cord with me as I always wanted to explore the reasons why the left is so hostile to private charities.
Socialists detest when people give their money and their time for free to achieve something that is supposed to be their well-paid job financed by righteously acquired funds from the greedy rich (a.k.a. taxpayers). Private charities are an affront to the distributor class as they put into question the very legitimacy of their existence as a social class. The insolence and arrogance of the special rapporteur as it was shining through the few clips in the news seemed to be the perfect example, the perfect hook to discuss a subject I always felt very strongly about.
The news report did not quote him, what I saw there was only an interpretive line, so I felt compelled to look for the source. That’s where my troubles begun.
I looked at the actual report, I could not find it saying what I expected, an actual denunciation of private charities. What I found was this: “The reliance on food banks is symptomatic of a broken social protection system and the failure of the State to meet its obligations to its people.” Building an argument on this would be a stretch. I believe I would be right, but it is not enough for me to say that he ‘attacked’ or even opposed private charities.
Then I was looking for a record of the press conference without luck. What I did find was an older one, still giving a very good idea about the stance of the UN.
Read the report in the Globe and I learned that David Olives of the Toronto Red Star is ashamed of being Canadian. Read blogs from left and right and watched several news clips like these, just to get more depressed with every passing minute.
The stupidity and the arrogance displayed in the report were overwhelming. Reading it I could not decide what was more offensive, the BullSpeak, the ill-informed and arrogant righteousness, the economic illiteracy, the shaky philosophical foundations, the scope of the demands, the insolent meddling, the condescension, or the sheer audacity of arguing for policies that would put the communist manifesto to shame. Each of these would deserve a discussion on its own.
Then I watched the press conference which gave me a scary feeling of déja vue. Some of the reports referred to de Schutter as a UN bureaucrat. He is more than that. The retinue around him could have come straight from a soviet era politburo. Do you know what the difference between a bureaucrat and an apparatchik is? You can look it up, but can you sense it? Maybe this will help. A bureaucrat is a passive maintainer of the organizational machinery. An apparatchik is an active promoter of its existence. “An unquestioningly loyal subordinate.” Intelligence is not a requirement, neither is dogmatic faith. The only requirement is unflinching loyalty to the cause.
The articles, especially David Olives’ was scary. I realized that I may be even in minority with my disgust about the event, the process and the organization. What is the extent of our collective stupidity? How many people are there around me (or you) who are too stupid to understand the meaning of a simple word (right)? How many of us cannot differentiate between a right and a privilege?
I also started wondering who did this envoy talked to. What are the organizations supporting this agenda?
After the failure of the revolution, communism is coming our way one government agency or a community organization at a time. But who are they? Where do they get their support?
I hope you can see how I got lost in the subjects. I will have to find simpler examples to tackle them. Something with less overall offensiveness. Less overarching idiocy. Something where I can sensibly make my points one at a time.