Welfare is Warfare


By Moses Apostitacus

If there was any decade in which the decline of the West became a foregone conclusion, it was the ’60s. Many of the shackles which hinder our liberties today were forged during that storied and romanticised period, and many of the fissures which are now ripping at the fabric of Western society first appeared at that time. The ugly beast of #BlackLivesMatter today is a direct descendant of the ’60s civil rights agitation. It was the decade in which critical theory hit the Western bloodstream, and began gnawing away at the integrity of our academic institutions. Second-wave feminism had its hairy birth in the States during the ’60s, and spread its message of maternal love and wholesome values over the following decades across a grateful planet. The political assassinations and mass trauma of the decade, capped off by the giddy euphoria of the moon landing, could be considered a perfect way to create despair and dependence on the state through a mass psy-op on the population, but of course those types of things don’t happen. That’s just crazy talk.

Ultimately, the most destructive legacy of that period is the welfare-warfare state. I use this phrase because one goes with the other. Throughout the history of empires, welfare and warfare have danced a strange tango of death and decadence. The bread and circuses in the cities of the Roman Empire went hand in hand with the legions crushing whole peoples on the frontiers, who two generations later were cheering in the Colosseum and demanding their daily bread from their rulers. For us, it’s Centrelink and the ABC while we pony up for another assault on a Middle Eastern country so we can then bring its people in as refugees to help prop up our declining demographics with their sprawling progeny. When some of those young men follow in the footsteps of their faith, declare war on us evil Crusaders and shoot up a cafe or a nightclub, the same government which provoked them and brought them here can then expand its powers even more to protect us from them. The tango of terror.

In the West, this imperial dance of entertainment and death really got going with the massive expansion of the US government under LBJ. When stepping down, Eisenhower had warned Americans about the growing influence of the military-industrial complex; had he been more explicit about the role of expanding taxation and debt-creation required to fund permanent warfare, we might have been more vigilant when politicians a generation later began massively expanding the state. When LBJ used the political capital the Democrats acquired following the assassination of Kennedy to usher in his Great Society programs, followed by Whitlam in Australia and similar socialists throughout the West a few years later, there was no going back. Once the genie of socialism is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in. The lure is too powerful. As Gough’s starry-eyed sycophants chanted, “It’s time, yes it’s time, yes it’s time!” The era of universal welfare and permanent warfare has been with us ever since.

7983905566_02b17bf9fe_CentrelinkThere is another more important and probably more controversial reason I use the term ‘welfare-warfare state’. It’s because welfare is warfare on the lower and middle classes, waged by the oligarchy. We’ve had fifty years of incrementally-expanding government welfare now, and tax burdens and public debt in the West are so bloated it’s difficult to see how the system can continue for much longer. How are we doing? Let’s take stock for a moment, and see how well the billions that have been confiscated by government and redistributed to their pet voting blocs have performed as an investment.

Welfare is war on the productive, the frugal and the future-oriented. In Victorian times, there was a phrase ‘the deserving poor’. This referred to people whose penury was not a result of bad habits or a lack of character, but rather decent people who had fallen on hard times through misfortune. These were the widows, orphans, ill and crippled who were the beneficiaries of Christian charity. There was no shame and no ostracism for the deserving poor. Those who were poor through drunkenness, laziness or ill-temper, on the other hand, were considered to have their correct station in life. This social mechanism ensured that the young were provided with a model of correct behaviour that benefited themselves and society as a whole. Under the welfare-warfare state, however, this mechanism has been inverted. Where charity was voluntary, welfare is compulsory, and makes no distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. Now all classes benefit from government largesse with other people’s money, and the consequence has been to destroy any incentive for productivity, frugality or delayed gratification. Our mindset today is not one of charity toward the deserving poor, but rather envy toward the undeserving rich. Even if the undeserving rich are merely those whose income is slightly above average because they studied and worked hard, made good decisions and ate grit yesterday so they could be better off today. Unlike Christian charity, welfare does not cultivate virtue. It proliferates vice.

Welfare is warfare on the family. Throughout Western history, and outside the West today, family has been the social safety net of society. The marriage contract provided a bedrock for a complex and extended network of reciprocity and mutual care which operated as insurance, jobseeker network, daycare provider, superannuation guarantee and source of venture capital. This was founded on an intergenerational covenant: parents provided their kids with nurture and resources so that one day they would be provided for in old age. It was unthinkable to break this covenant, as then future participation in the family support network would be impossible. These were people for whom reputation was everything, as it guaranteed their security. One of the cruellest things you can do to a community is remove moral hazard, and the brokenness and dysfunction we see in individuals at the bottom of the social order is the result of this destruction of the traditional family. By replacing the functions of the traditional family network, welfare has destroyed the very foundations of what made families function. More than anything else, this is the reason for the broken and sorry state of families on the West. We’ve sacrificed family to the gods of utopian socialism, and lost our identity and communities as a result.

Welfare is war on the young and the unborn. As well as the heavily armed hand of government stealing from the virtuous to bribe the vicious via tax, welfare is funded through government debt. You could count on one hand the countries which have ever paid off their public debt. It just snowballs over time until it overwhelms the society and the accounts are settled through war. We’re close to that point now. In the meantime, however, the young are being burdened with the past expenses of the old. All those hip replacements and real estate investment subsidies and gender reassignment surgeries are being put on a government tab which will not be paid by the recipients. It will be paid, with interest, by the unborn. That debt operates through the bond markets, and it is no accident that it is the elite banking class and the oligarchs who are the primary bondholder beneficiaries. Think of it as human farming.

The West is heading toward its Berlin Wall moment, when entitlements and unfunded promises to all sorts of groups by government fall in a heap. Already, central banks are having to keep interest rates at unprecedented lows; this hasn’t been to stimulate economic growth, it’s been to keep government finances on life support. It can’t and won’t last, and one day soon the entire ponzi scheme will fall apart.

The inevitability of this, however, is not a guarantee that the collapse of socialism will bring about liberty and integrity of government. It could go the other way. Right-thinking men and women need to fight now to break the spell of collectivist thinking, the mentality that life must be fair and that utopia can be created if we all just get along and submit to the tyranny of equality. The tango of death and decadence continues because there will always be a segment of the population who seek to use the power of the government to steal from those who have more, and there will always be ruthless and ambitious individuals who seek power through tapping this envy and covetousness in the populace. If we are to have any hope of ending the welfare-warfare tango of death, we must discredit the ideas that justify it boldly whenever we can and stand for truth, reason and reality. Only this will cut through the enchanting music and bring this horrible dance to an end, at least in our time.

The view from up on the mountain was degeneracy. Degeneracy everywhere. When Moses came back down again, he determined to help destroy it.

Photo by David Jackmanson

  • Excellent article. As a hawk, I don’t agree fully with the characterisation of the West’s wars, but I agree with the analogy of welfare to warfare, and its destructive effects on the lower classes and its hindrance of the middle and productive classes.

  • kevo

    Im with you all the way. But I have a horrible feeling that its already too late….

  • Bikinis not Burkas

    Why do you think Muslims only invade countries with the best welfare systems, it is to further the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam.
    OIC meets regularly to implement stratagies to bring down the Infadel at the hands of the Muslim.

    • johnno

      I spend 3 weeks in Communist run Vietnam last year and traveled from the south to the north. One thing that stood out was the lack of Muslim and African population. Because the country has no welfare system? I came to that conclusion. No four wives with four welfare cheques like the welfare handouts in England and Australia. Muslims don’t really “invade countries”, its really “country shopping”, pick one that pays well with a generous amount of free benefits. Countries run by socialist thinking governments with bleeding hearts and supported by the snowflake generation.

  • carlos

    Where do you draw the line on what is regarded as “welfare”?

  • Karen Dwyer

    Interesting. Very interesting. Having been brought up with a so-called Protestant work ethic, I would agree with a large chunk of this article. That is, re family and Christian charity. However, there are pitfalls. Victorian workhouses were diabolical and not reminiscent of Christ at all. Also, who decides who is deserving? A prideful, cold, denying heart gives rise to a sprawling administration ever devising more paperwork to assess others.
    Christian charity without Christ is meaningless.
    My children are young and I am happy to step away from being an economic unit to care for them. That means our material standard of living is lower than some people we know who work for 2 salaries. But we have low level of debt and are wealthy by world standards. Not to mention that my children understand concepts like justice, mercy, and grace.
    Grace is the generous, unmerited favour of God. How can any government apply God’s economy without acknowledging God?
    Men like ex-treasurer Joe Hockey would rather me be an economic unit and cream off a daycare/schooling/after school care bribe funded by taxpayers. Women like Roz Ward would rather I be an economic unit who allows various social engineering programmes to be used on my children, experimentally, while someone else creams off taxpayer funding.

  • Karen Dwyer

    To sum up. I do enjoy an article that makes me think!

    • Robyn Todhunter

      Sadly Karen the are too few like you.

    • I love reading your explanations Karen. You’re a very clear, lucid thinker. That your children have a mother who understands the grace of God and is in relationship with Him makes them very rich. If I didn’t understand the unmerited love of God I wouldn’t be as loving as I am as a father (not saying I’m perfect, but I’d definitely be worse).

      You’re right about the heartless, legalistic Christianity of our recent past. What people suffered in orphanages and workhouses was abominable. We agree though it seems that, despite the failings of Christian institutions in the past, it’s better than the state-controlled dysfunction we have now. Unfortunately the elites in our society never rub cheeks with the underclass of the broken on the edges of our society, so they can keep supporting the system that enriches them. Glad you enjoyed the article!

  • Arjayh

    There actually is a way that Australians can have their cake and eat it too. The Federal Govt should stop trying to be pay for everything and actually make the States earn their GST revenue.
    HECS and Medicare aside, the states should have full fiscal responsibility for Health, Education (as they already do) and Industrial Relations,. including all the side issues such as working conditions, minimum wage and Childcare. The Federal Govt being only responsible for Federal employees and Federal issues, such as Defence, Immigration, etc.
    If the Federal Govt no longer pays vast sums for the states’ responsibilities then massive personal and business tax cuts should be given.
    That would stimulate the economy as people would spend their money how they choose, not the government spending it how they choose.
    Every quarter the GST revenue should be separated into 3 equal buckets, with the first bucket divided into amounts directly proportional to the size of the state. Thus WA would the largest portion and the ACT the least.
    The second bucket apportioned according to the amount of GST revenue generated in each state. So the states would have to encourage people to spend more in their own states – and get people from interstate to come and spend.
    The third bucket directly proportional to number of people employed in that state. State public servants not included, otherwise Andrews, Weatherill, or one of the other premiers would cook the books and inflate the number of public servants.
    Out of that third bucket the Federal Govt should deduct a percentage according to the state’s unemployment rate to put on welfare.
    This way the states would have to develop policies to improve their economy and if NSW or WA actually balance their budgets they should be rewarded with higher GST revenue. Instead of having their GST revenue deducted and given to the rustbucket states.

    • The Feds give up control of funding? I don’t know how that would fly in Canberra, Arjayh.

  • Pingback: Welfare is Warfare – Folly of Reason()