I was passed along an advertisement recently of a graphic designer vaunting their wage subsidy provided by Human Resources Development Canada. If hired, this person would have their income partially paid for by the government. It’s assumed this is a favor to potential employers. In actuality, the subsidy is not a costless benefit to hiring businesses. It is tax money, taken from the many and given to the few. Little is ever gained in the giveth-and-taketh game the state takes part in. That this budding graphic designer views welfare aid positively is a definite sign of naïveté. Welfarism is only looked to endearingly by the righteous calvary of social workers, government bureaucrats, and progressive university faculty. The rest of society’s productive members put on a sympathetic face for dole collectors while reserving a sharp disdain for their bottom-feeding. The employer, looking down upon a worker too deficient in ability to receive a tax-financed grant, knows full well such an arrangement is not sustainable. Once the monetary assistance is gone, so is the position without a second thought.
This is but one example of misguided interventionism hatched from the minds of Canada’s ruling class. It’s asinine to believe you can tax business owners to partially cover the cost of otherwise unemployable workers and expect to skirt the laws of economics. There is no wealth to be gained through the use of “a clenched fist,” to borrow a phrase from Leonard Reed. That aphorism has never stopped the dubious thought constructs of men longing to create a society equitable and prosperous for all. If anything, it has emboldened the sick, fantastical conception of a clay populace willing to be molded to fit nicely into egalitarian predilections.
The graveyard of victims wrought by public policy created on the behalf of victimized classes is filled with the unused talent of a new breed of martyrs. To add another casualty to the heap, I will also throw in simple decency as well. The attitude of self-styled antagonists of privilege is just plain awful. From screeching feminists to Ivory Tower anti-racists who have never been within one hundred feet of a minority individual, their pompous rhetoric of disdain for the underlings would be admirable if it were not guided by Utopian derangement.
Say what you will, but at least conspiracy theorists remain charming for their incessant yammering over a cryptic plot by globalists to take over the world. A cabal of bankers cozying up to the heads of nation states in smoked filled rooms makes for an intriguing, not to mention true, narrative. On the other hand, egalitarian interventionists are upfront and unembarrassed about their agenda, almost to the point of being pitiable. Their total lack of astonishment over the ire some have for objectives like racial quotas makes them even more of an annoyance.
Recently the Canadian Broadcast Company was accepting applications for the host of a new television show aimed at children. The catch was the applicant could be of any racial makeup barring the devil race: Caucasian. Shortly after, the stipulation of having any skin color – with the exception of morbid white – vanished down the memory hole. A spokesman for the network declared the advertisement was a mistake and it would be looked into more thoroughly. Chances of the incident being brought up again are the same as Karl Marx coming back from the afterlife and declaring all the dialectic materialism and talk of communism’s inevitability was a practical joke. The issue will be soon forgotten, and attention will be diverted back to another irrelevant cause for social justice like ensuring transgendered folks are allowed to attend a musical festival for women.
The progressive mindset is aflame with blatant contradictions; lambasting private persons for racial preference while cheering for government’s hiring quotas topping the list. Somehow it’s neanderthalic to hang a “whites only” sign outside your business but perfectly acceptable, and high brow cosmopolitan, to do so as a state official. The only reasoning I can figure behind a scheme like government affirmative action is to make up for decades of prejudicial treatment. It’s similar to the same train of thought that told Harry Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Nagasaki in the name of peace and saving lives.
Naturally, state bureaucrats find it reasonable to matter-of-factly discriminate in hiring practices. Canada’s monopoly of force has been utilizing minority “targets” since 2003. Even so, spokespeople for Ottawa agencies assert that no Canadian is prohibited from public sector jobs “based on race or ethnicity.” But how can this be if psychologically malignant administrators are purposefully seeking nonwhites to man help desks at the Department of Motor Vehicles? There is no acceptable retort other than these are, indeed, mutually exclusive goals. The quest for egalitarianism must involve the discrimination of persons. Forming a rainbow workforce means choosing every color from the bunch.
Conceding for a moment that the state is legitimate, the use of tax dollars to reward anything other than merit should strike a negative chord with the few in society who still possess a functioning inner compass for fairness. Equal opportunity is not the same as special treatment, even if the latter is truly a product of good conviction. Thus far, the bureaucrats in Ottawa have done a miserable job at acclimating the workforce to reflect the demographic picture of Canada. Both the disabled and so-called “visible minorities” are underrepresented in the federal government when compared to overall population. No doubt the champions of the trampled want to replace entitled caucasians with workers of darker melanin. That is the likely culprit behind the “whites need not apply” mentality at the CBC.
The wish of the Canadian government – along with its kindred force monopolizers around the world – is to create a citizenry with beaming, multi-colored faces similar to the glint of green on newly wetted shrubbery. This vision requires the employment of guns and badges to carry forth the diktat of equality-for-all. Compassion through compulsion is the progressive creed. The logic of “the best man for the job” is cast aside as a stale euphemism for the white superiority of antiquity.
If state policy is going to require discrimination, the Canadian government should think it best to place someone like Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries in charge of hiring and placement. The recent public castigation over his comments on overweight women indicates a strong will to be prejudice, even in the face of bawling indignation. For admitting he wants only “beautiful” people wearing the Abercrombie label, an expected assemblage of steamed, and likely not-too-courteous to the eye, women declared Jeffries to be the anti-Christ and his store a haunt for the damned. One peeved commenter declared no “full-figured women” should be “judged by this man.” Forget gingerly political appointees trying so hard to not be offensive they end up insulting everyone – Canada needs a man like Jeffries to make tough calls like picking a gimp-legged aboriginal over an able-bodied white man. Regardless of his superficial appearance, Mr. Abercrombie has done more good for the world with his candid illiberality than sobbing defenders of the downtrodden who staff Ottawa’s many federal agencies. It’s just a shame he is white, and thus unhirable.