ONE OF THE MORE PATHETICALLY NAUSEATING THEMES COMMON TO FAUX NEWS' BRAND OF PROLEFEED is that which sees free-market capitalism as the Great White Father and Saviour of the poor, undereducated or homeschooled and easily-influenced that Faux is forever seeing to be their target audience.

Especially such regarded as "chronic and habitual welfare cases," among other Threats to Morals and Decency which Faux enjoys subjecting to nothing less than ridicule and contempt (as if suggesting that the only hope the Lower Classes had for "wholeheartedly" accepting a greater sense of personal responsibility was to, to paraphrase a novellist, "stop worrying and love capitalism with all your heart").

But then again, the only sort of capitalism which Faux sees as the Great White Hope for the "welfare basket cases" is nothing less than "pure" capitalism--nothing less than laissez-fare based on self-regulatory Codes of Good Practice which turn out to excuse cartel behaviour and its worst excesses by all manner of coded "outs" appearing to protect free-market competition and free choice.

Not to mention "reinventing welfare" based on a "mutual self-help" model which, lacking any clear specifics as to what is implied, suggests adoption of the English friendly society model based on Faux's belief in self-reliance, personal responsibility, thrift and a Wholesome and Simple Home Life being the pillars of empowerment. (Provided, of course, that the Lower Classes used their own resources to make such possible; any attempt @ seeking even technical assistance or advice is to be seen as "promoting dependency" to the point of "undermining healthy respect for self-reliance and personal responsibility.")

=============

WITH THAT IN MIND, THEN, FAUX NEEDS TO BE ASKED some serious questions in this regard:

• How and where do you get the argument that a "pure" version of free-market capitalism is the last and only hope the Lower Classes have towards their "empowerment"?
• How do you base the contention that only a "pure" form of capitalism is best towards "empowering" the Lower Classes out of "enslavement" to State welfare?
• Have you any viable historical precedent to support such a contention? How can such be adapted to 21st-century circumstances?
• Have you any documentary evidence proving an interconnexion between dependency on State welfare and Social Security benefits and unconscious support of Communist or Socialist beliefs among the Lower Classes?
• Is deliberate anti-Semitism expected to be part of your greater design towards the final perfection of "pure" free-market capitalism? Why?
• With regards to mutual self-help as the future of social welfare, how can you expect the poor thus expected to "benefit" thereby to develop such initiatives solely on their own initiative and resources? Whence the argument that seeking even technical assistance towards such an otherwise noble end "leads to dependency"?
• Can you show how mutual self-help can work within the parameters of a free-market socioeconomic model and paradigm such as you claim to defend to "empower" the Lower Classes?
• Can you cite any viable examples of mutual self-help here in the "morally superior" United States as are actually empowering the Lower Classes? What otherwise prevents your disclosure?
• How do we know that you're not subtly suggesting illegal or otherwise questionable "empowerment" strategems such as "cashflow gifting" clubs deliberately manipulated to benefit only an "elect***entitled as of right"? (This would include schemes packaged under such guises as "Friends Helping Friends" and related affinity-based permutations, "Aeroplane," "Pit Stop," "Dinner Party" and similar.) What would be your defence towards "gifting clubs" as a form of "mutual self-help," notwithstanding their illegal nature?
• Have you no sense of Decency, Sirs, @ long last?
• Have you left no sense of Decency?