Why are youth arts workers almost always middle-class young women with condescending voices?
Why do they so shamelessly and without a qualm allow the educational bureaucracy to dictate the terms of their arts project – turning what may at one point have been a good idea into another piece of patronizing educational ‘achievement’ with Certificates of achievement issued to all? The kind of certificates that say that achievement is only possible in the official credentials system.
Why is it so often the case that there are more logos on the project web site from government bodies eager to show they are doing something than there are young people in the project?
Why is there no fucking resistance?
There is no care in the system
How could there be? A bureaucracy cannot care.
The problem is when the bureaucracy is all there is.
The ‘left’ moans about how uncaring the welfare state is. It cannot be otherwise. The problem is when people look to a state organised bureaucracy to provide social care. When this happens all the calls to strengthen the welfare state reduce the possibility of care. This is because such calls always seem to present the welfare state as the sole provider of social solidarity and support. This exclusive focus on state provided care weakens the actual mechanisms which could provide this support – the Church, family and neighbourhood. (The exclusive focus on the state is usually the result of an ideology of ‘equality’. An ideology which sees the Church and the family as patriarchal and patronizing).
It’s all about money
The people who control this society measure everything in money
That’s why public morality has bitten the dust
It gets in the way of the upsell
The market always had its place
But now it has conquered the forum and the palace and the school
Society has become a plaything for unscrupulous merchants and spivs
The text is from an advert for a job as a teacher in a PRU. A PRU is a place where there send the naughty children who didn’t fit in at school. In a PRU they give them a more concentrated dose of the same poison.
Now. I thought that the convention was to refer to people as “who”. As in “who can be both demanding and challenging”. One might perhaps say “please consider this job in a zoo with crocodiles that can be challenging at times”. Whoever wrote this text seems to have failed to make the normal human distinction between animals and people.
Yet this culture permeates the whole of modern schooling…
The problem is that productivity and profit has become an all-encompassing end in itself.
Everything is subsumed in the drive for productivity and profit. Anything which gets in the way is cancelled. For instance; morality, love, care, human relations, compassion.
The culture is indeed determined by the economic model. It turns out that Marx was right.
There is nothing wrong with productivity and prosperity but they need to be put to the service of something ‘higher’. Such as a well-ordered society which provides security for all. And to support cultural and spiritual endeavours.
This necessary basic shift in values has been discussed in many forms in the West. The problem is well-known.
We need to move from a focus on ‘me’ to a focus on ‘everyone’.
Right now there is no obvious spiritual force which will drive this change in the West. The dynamic of selfish materialism rules the day and still has time to play out some more disasters.
In the 5 years 2004-2009 the EU sold arms worth €800 million to Gaddafi. 
The sales continued right up till the moment that the UK and France (in the main) decided in 2011 that Gaddafi was an evil dictator who had to be overthrown with force.
The British and French Premiers hailed the overthrow of Gaddafi (and his bloody battlefield execution) as moments of “democracy” and “freedom”.
In the West a kind of mafia has come to power. One of the hallmarks of this mafia is that they try to maintain a discourse that they are the custodians, if not the authors, of supreme morality on the planet.
While acting with complete venality they tell a story about how they and only they embody decency and morality. (This is indeed a kind of “Crusader” mentality. One is reminded of the rape of Christian Constantinople by Crusaders in 1204. They set out with the noble aim of recovering the Holy Lands for Christendom and ended up pillaging Christian Constantinople).
The same is true on the home front. Society is dominated by corporations whose ethic amounts to no more than “can our highly paid lawyers present a defence if we do this”. Since the laws are made by corporate lackeys of the political class and “enforced” by utterly supine state regulatory agencies this isn’t very hard to do. But on the home front too we have to listen to endless lectures about “this is the right thing to do”. And while they extol the virtues of the free-market including the free-market in labour they demonise people who are out of work.
The manufactured paedophile scare helps to divert attention away from the venality of the corporate and political classes. Indeed it has become an industry in its own right and a new reason to surveill the population.
Most normal, decent, people understand that the law (national legislation enforceable by the police) is not the limit against which they should set their behaviour. It is there to stop the worst abuses. Their own ethical or moral standards should be far higher.
Corporations however have a different approach. Corporations will do anything to make profits for which they can have a legally defensible position. The markets and their shareholders demand this.
This means that corporations will have the morality and ethics of the gutter. Strangely, no one talks about this.