Friday, 2 July 2021

Inequality is good, obviously - 'inclusion' is cant to justify left-wing social engineering

"...Our monetary authorities have in recent years sometimes seemed more concerned with climate change, apparently growing inequality, and diversity and inclusion agendas than what they are mandated to do, which is control inflation."
This is from Jeremy Warner in the Daily Telegraph today. I read that and thought: I do not think climate change or allegedly growing inequality are problems. I think inequality is a good thing, to be celebrated. Unlike poverty or, worse, destitution. That is why I am a conservative. Inequality is the corollary of freedom and another word for hierarchy. 

As Margaret Thatcher said, the only form of equality that is good is equality before the law, which is a completely different use of the word equality from the usual meaning. Equality before the law simply means free trials.

On the other hand, I do think growing diversity is the enemy of social cohesion and can be a very big problem in the future. 

Immigrants are like salt - some are necessary for flavour but too much spoils the soup.

As for inclusion, that is cant for social engineering, something conservatives should hate. 

Instead of social engineering, I'd like societies to grow and change organically by the free decisions of many millions of free men and women (note gendered language).

The hero of War and Peace is not Prince Andrei but the Russian people. Tolstoy suspends the narrative and breaks into philosophy when he explains that the individual decisions made by millions​ of people are what determine history. They determined the Russian defeat of Napoleon, as they did later the Russian (Soviet) defeat of Hitler.

Admittedly, neither Czar Alexander I nor Stalin were afraid of social engineering or interfering with individual freedom. 

Still I agree with Tolstoy completely and therefore disagree with Marx, who thought he discerned historical laws determining history. The progressives, like the Marxists, think they are on the winning side in history and that this justifies them.

I agree with Disraeli too and trot out again these sublime words of his.
"In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines." 

"When will it end?" is the headline on a piece of spam that The Economist just sent me. At first glance I assumed they were talking about Woke but on clicking I found they were boring on about the Covid-19. 


  1. The Disraeli quotation can't be repeated too often.

  2. I think inequality is a good thing, to be celebrated.

    Up to a point. Beyond a certain point inequality will lead to instability and will threaten the legitimacy of the system. The trick is to strike a balance.

    As for inclusion, that is cant for social engineering, something conservatives should hate.

    I agree. Inclusion is the enemy of freedom. Ironically, it's also the enemy of actual diversity. Inclusion and diversity are opposites. Just as freedom and democracy are in many ways opposites.