I would like to take a moment to extend my sympathies to all those impacted by the recent, sad news of the passing of Peter Whittle. A man who no doubt did good things for the UK in the form of the broader political right and general political and socio-economic conversations of the nation.
With that said I would like to take this opportunity to address something else. People may consider this distasteful to talk about something such as this after the regrettable early passing of someone due to cancer. However I think it is something Mr Whittle himself would appreciate, as it gives a chance for the political ideas and sphere he operated in to improve its position and arguments. Much as so many people on the right, particularly in the UK seem to have an absolute 0 tolerance policy on "punching right" as they purloin the language the left. Self reflection and critique of your own "side" is always needed, lest you fall into an echo chamber with pre-conceived and unchallengeable, thus unbending, notions, that may become a problem later on.
I've somewhat enjoyed what I can only describe as the cognitive dissonance of certain conservative commentators, particularly in the UK, with regards to the regrettable passing of Mr Whittle. This is exclusively because Mr Whittle was a homosexual. Many UK commentators, indeed many international commentators on the right, have held in recent years to the position of "people without children are selfish and destructive to society" in some cases going so far as to say "they should be taxed into oblivion and never be allowed to use any of the services they are forced to pay for because they contribute nothing to society" and other such sentiments.
Seeing in recent days how this suddenly handbrake turns into the very kind words they have for Mr Whittle in his passing. "He had many spiritual children", "He contributed greatly to society and the wider thought sphere with his writing and works at the New Culture Forum", "his political activism and career have been important in furthering conservative thought and action".
I would suggest the "childless people are literally the fall of society" people reconsider their overall position in this light. Homosexuals very rarely have children, there are people unable to have them for biological reasons, there are people whose mental profiles, personalities and general life styles are not conducive to the having and raising of children. Many of the greatest inventors, scientists, philosophers etc. that these same commenters regularly cite, were childless. Indeed their lack of children is often part of the reason they were able to achieve such great things, they simply had more time on their hands to work on their ideas. Their works have gone on to greatly influence and build society. Far more so than a child who may or may not contribute anything. After all, your "children who are the future" may very well grow up to be jobless, welfare dependant wastrels. This will contribute nothing to society, in fact it will be an active drain. Once again I point to the single mother, man desert, welfare sink holes of society and revoke the right of any "childless people are the worst thing ever" commentators to complain about such arrangements. They did their duty and had children. In some cases several of them by multiple men. They are the future of society and have contributed meaningfully. Far more so than the over-represented in tax contribution, under-represented in welfare taking childless people who, apparently, have 0 interest in the future and are just mindless hedonists. Apparently people without their own biological children are incapable of caring about any adopted children they may have or nephews, nieces, cousins etc.
Self reflection on this topic would be well worth your time. As would some semblance of consistency.
TL;DR
I would like to take a moment to extend my sympathies to all those impacted by the recent, sad news of the passing of Peter Whittle. A man who no doubt did good things for the UK in the form of the broader political right and general political and socio-economic conversations of the nation.
With that said I would like to take this opportunity to address something else. People may consider this distasteful to talk about something such as this after the regrettable early passing of someone due to cancer. However I think it is something Mr Whittle himself would appreciate, as it gives a chance for the political ideas and sphere he operated in to improve its position and arguments. Much as so many people on the right, particularly in the UK seem to have an absolute 0 tolerance policy on "punching right" as they purloin the language the left. Self reflection and critique of your own "side" is always needed, lest you fall into an echo chamber with pre-conceived and unchallengeable, thus unbending, notions, that may become a problem later on.
I've somewhat enjoyed what I can only describe as the cognitive dissonance of certain conservative commentators, particularly in the UK, with regards to the regrettable passing of Mr Whittle. This is exclusively because Mr Whittle was a homosexual. Many UK commentators, indeed many international commentators on the right, have held in recent years to the position of "people without children are selfish and destructive to society" in some cases going so far as to say "they should be taxed into oblivion and never be allowed to use any of the services they are forced to pay for because they contribute nothing to society" and other such sentiments.
Seeing in recent days how this suddenly handbrake turns into the very kind words they have for Mr Whittle in his passing. "He had many spiritual children", "He contributed greatly to society and the wider thought sphere with his writing and works at the New Culture Forum", "his political activism and career have been important in furthering conservative thought and action".
I would suggest the "childless people are literally the fall of society" people reconsider their overall position in this light. Homosexuals very rarely have children, there are people unable to have them for biological reasons, there are people whose mental profiles, personalities and general life styles are not conducive to the having and raising of children. Many of the greatest inventors, scientists, philosophers etc. that these same commenters regularly cite, were childless. Indeed their lack of children is often part of the reason they were able to achieve such great things, they simply had more time on their hands to work on their ideas. Their works have gone on to greatly influence and build society. Far more so than a child who may or may not contribute anything. After all, your "children who are the future" may very well grow up to be jobless, welfare dependant wastrels. This will contribute nothing to society, in fact it will be an active drain. Once again I point to the single mother, man desert, welfare sink holes of society and revoke the right of any "childless people are the worst thing ever" commentators to complain about such arrangements. They did their duty and had children. In some cases several of them by multiple men. They are the future of society and have contributed meaningfully. Far more so than the over-represented in tax contribution, under-represented in welfare taking childless people who, apparently, have 0 interest in the future and are just mindless hedonists. Apparently people without their own biological children are incapable of caring about any adopted children they may have or nephews, nieces, cousins etc.
Self reflection on this topic would be well worth your time. As would some semblance of consistency.
2 days ago | [YT] | 343