Westminster has even perverted our language

Anyone familiar with the discipline of sociology will be aware that we live in a symbolic universe. What that means is that we make sense of much of our social reality through symbols, and a large portion of such symbols are delivered by language. When I use the word chair, each of us have a symbolic representation of a chair in our consciousness and so I do not have to explain what I mean by a chair. It is the same with words like kettle, pen or computer. If I use a word like love however, or a word like Muslim or Catholic or black or gay, then the symbol that each of us carry in our consciousness for words such as these that do not denote a physical artefact will depend largely on our socialisation which will render such words either positive or negative depending on how we have been socialised to see them. Language is dynamic, in that meanings alter between and within societies, and over time. For example, in my lifetime the word gay has changed its meaning completely and is almost never used in the Anglo-Saxon form that I learned as a child. In my world, a fag is something you smoke, but in the US it is something quite different.

The same thing has happened to the word welfare, which was always referred to as social security until the Tories decided to adopt the derogatory and demeaning American use of welfare and thus embed within the consciousness of the British public an association with a negative and demeaning symbol in order to stigmatise the people who depend on it and all the Westminster parties have bought into this crime against humanity. We never use the term social security today, despite the fact that for much of my adult life the government department that was responsible for the benefits system was called The Department for Social Security. This rebranding of social security was quite deliberate in order to begin the process of demonising people on benefits, presenting them as enemies of the state and creating a national hatred for them amongst those who are fortunate enough to have a good job. People on social security are scapegoated for the failures of government and labelled as welfare scroungers and skivers in order to further the Tories ultimate goal of introducing modern forms of slavery, and they are well on their way to achieving this by stigmatising and demonising people on benefits and driving as many people as possible out of the benefits system and into low wage, zero-hours employment with no rights and no security, thus replacing one form of dependency with another. The people in such low wage, part-time, temporary and zero hours employment will be totally dependent on the employer and be forced to accept whatever terms and conditions are on offer. They are being systematically deprived of all employment rights, and that is a form of slavery. Under successive governments language has been deliberately distorted in order to present a distorted picture of reality. Welfare now denotes dependency instead of its Anglo-Saxon definition of well-being and care. It is a stigma today to be a welfare claimant when you are in fact a recipient of social security. In the English language, Welfare means health, happiness, prosperity and well-being, but in modern Tory Britain it means stigmatisation, dependency, food-banks, poverty and in many cases starvation. To be on welfare means you are unworthy, a non-person, the people the Nazis referred to as ‘untermenschen’.

This is in line with Thatcher's infamous statement that there is no such thing as society. If there is no society, then society has no responsibilities as it does not exist and therefore there can be no such thing as social security. All forms of security must be the responsibility of individuals and families because as Thatcher said, there are only individuals, families and voluntary associations. Feckless and irresponsible individuals and families get welfare, usually from charities and voluntary associations, but people who are citizens of a real and caring society get social security. Social security is anathema to Tories because it signals that society has a responsibility to those citizens that society has failed and they will not admit that. I mean we cannot accuse Thatcher of being wrong can we? People in need of social security are in that position because, according to the Tory gospel, it’s their own fault. Now, admittedly, some people who need benefits are themselves to blame, but, in the cause of a much greater social need, it is of little consequence if these people are included even though they don't really deserve it. That is the hallmark of a civilised society. We know that benefit fraud accounts for only 0.7% of the benefits budget whilst the Tories policies have produced tax fraud on a truly Olympian scale, foodbanks, widespread poverty and in some cases starvation, so which is the greatest fraud? If you share the Tories use of language you are as guilty as they are. You have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat