THERE IS NO ARGUING THE FACT THAT CONSERVATIVE ARTICLES OF FAITH ARE HEAVY WITH CONTEMPT TOWARDS THE LOWER CLASSES, especially so when it comes to the meme that "welfare basket cases" "are lacking any decent respect for industry, self-reliance and personal responsibility" which, in conservative thought, can only be remedied by requiring eligible welfare cases to find work as a "mere formality" for welfare eligibility.

Easier said than done under current socioeconomic conditions, made all the more worse by His Fraudulency's misadventures packaged as ur-RAHOWA Against International Terrorism, and his insistence that same can be supported by keeping taxes low in the name of "creating jobs" and, in its turn, "maintaining social order."

No doubt translating all the more into fertile opportunities for exploitation by "work-from-home" mountebanks taking unscrupulous advantage of an obviously vulnerable element such as is common among those on welfare--which these same Zealots and True Believers in workfare as a way of controlling the Lower Classes hope the "welfare queens" will respond to, and quickly, never mind the likelihood of their being scams.

Or, for that matter, scenarios such as that described in the following recent "WaiWai" item per the Mainichi Daily News (which, as per usual, needs to be taken cum grano salis--with a grain of salt, as it were--because of the original source being less than credible journalistically trans-Pacific):

Tokyo's once-thriving cabaret club hostess industry is teetering on the verge of extinction, thanks to a clean-up campaign targeting the street-side touts referred to colloquially as "crows", according to Nikkan Gendai (4/3).

Crows are the (usually) young men in trendy suits who hang around Tokyo's entertainment districts, accosting attractive female pedestrians with offers of work as a hostess in a cabaret club, the Japanese name for establishments where customers are plied with pricey drinks by pretty young women.

Revisions to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's ordinance outlawing people from creating a public nuisance already ban people from trying to get women to work in adult movies and sex businesses, but now it's no longer legal to ask them to work as a hostess, either.

Nikkan Gendai notes that an arrest of a cabaret club talent scout has already happened on April 1, the day the new ban came into effect. It says the clean-up of entertainment areas in the capital--like Shinjuku, Shibuya and Ikebukuro--is aimed at making Tokyo look more pristine for its campaign to host the 2016 Olympic Games.

But the lowbrow afternoon tabloid daily says that even though many would welcome the disappearance of the annoying crows from street corners, materialization of such a phenomenon has many within the cabaret club industry fearing their business may be doomed.

"There are about 5,000 crows working the entertainment districts in Shinjuku, Shibuya and Ikebukuro, some of them making upward of ¥30 million a year. A large majority of nightclub hostesses are recruited from the streets. A talented crow knows the kind of woman who's going to succeed in the business, and when a club gets a decent hostess, it livens things up and makes sure everyone has a good time," the manager of several famous cabaret clubs in Tokyo tells Nikkan Gendai on condition of anonymity. "If the talent scouts disappeared off the streets, it would be the death of the cabaret club industry. I'm already worried about whether we'll be able to maintain the quality of hostess we've currently got working at my clubs."

So ask yourselves, ye Zealots and True Believers of producerism as is @ the heart of your contempt for the poor and vulnerable:

• Would you rather that some "welfare queen" entered Mrs. Warren's Profession if she were reduced to such circumstances for want of approriate employment?
• Would you prefer that Vocational Guidance Counsellors (as your ilk would now prefer having welfare case managers now referred to) trick some of their problem cases unable to find honest work into selling Quixtar/Amway and suchlike, knowing full well that a number of "multi-level marketing" schemes like Quixtar are worse than rigged casinos?
• Would you offer "guidance" to certain "helpless welfare cases" that they get a one-way bus ticket out of town and move elsewhere (preferably interstate) just to find work because jobs just aren't available locally?
• How would you react to the likelihood that many people employed only because of workfare are discharged for "reasons" having nothing to do with the real such--i.e., the tax credits and incentives offered employers to encourage the employment of welfare cases having lapsed without incentives being offered to retain them after the credits lapse?
• Since you're the sort who sees mutual self-help as "the next wave" in social-welfare thought, what would prevent you from encouraging the establishment of mutual self-help initiatives as would fit in with your desires of helping the Lower Classes "develop a renewed healthy respect for industry, self-reliance, personal responsibility, thrift and a wholesome and simple home life"?
  Fear, perhaps, that such otherwise laudible initiatives would "only perpetuate dependency"?
  Fear that such might "undermine the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" by way of Knowledge and Enlightenment being spread?
  Fear that your very "antient and pecuilar rights, privileges and powers***entitled as of right" might be "undermined"?
• How do we know that your belief in mutual self-help as the Great White Hope for the Lower Classes isn't really hypocritical doublethink (as in your notion that certain mutual self-help models "tend to Socialism or otherwise un-American beliefs inconsistent with American heritage and experience")--or, put another way, mutual self-help "in theory"?
• What are your real concerns about mutual self-help actually seeking to empower the Lower Classes towards such lofty and noble goals of "empowerment" and "self-reliance" you expect out of them through workfare, but without real success?
• Would you expect to encourage the spread of "cashflow gifting clubs" as your preferred form of promoting "mutual self-help" in the Lower Classes, all the while (un)consciously (un)aware that these same "gifting clubs" are really closer to Ponzi schemes manipulated to favour only an "elect***entitled as of right" @ the highest echelons, expected all the while to maintain secrecy and discretion? What rationale have you for such pathetic lily-gilding?
• How do we know such initiatives you would have in mind as (theoretical) "mutual self-help" to "empower" (or so you hope) the Lower Classes aren't secretly involving the weird and unwholesome element, especially criminal and terrorist syndicates seeking ways to launder their Proceeds of Crime?
• How do you expect mutual self-help to be compatible with your other belief (perhaps xenophobic, come to think of it) that free-market capitalism with American characteristics is to be seen by the Lower Classes as the Great White Father, so to speak?
• Have you no sense of Decency, Sirs, @ long last?
• Have you left no sense of Decency?

But don't come crying to me if you see these questions as nothing less than "critical attacks," "innuendo" or "harrassment." It's a problem which you created--and which you need to resolve.