By James Moylan
Nobody likes homelessness. It’s not something anyone would choose to do, or choose to inflict on someone else. But we have no option. The very survival of our nation and a way of life depends on it.
After all: houses are first and foremost an asset. Just because it is an asset that might or might not be sheltering one or more individuals is neither here nor there. We cannot allow rash sentimentality to get in the way of ‘public confidence’. If that means that a few people have to be discomforted, for the good of the many, then that is just the way it has to be. The ‘market’ has spoken.
Yes it is getting so as a lot of poor people simply cannot afford to ‘live’ in a house. So homelessness, since it is obviously now unavoidable, actually represents an opportunity rather than a threat. Since we deserving have decided that we thoroughly deserve to be multi-millionaires, then obviously there will have to be some losers. In fact the ‘loser’ market is likely be an ever growing segment.
So yes it is obvious that we have to do something! This is such a huge, and growing, untapped market.
Surely we can make sure that these once proud and independent citizens, now cast onto the scrap-heap of society, can still help by paying off at least part of somebody’s mortgage? So we have to think outside of the box. Perhaps even consider the reintroduction of slums. Maybe even legalise renting-out segments of front and backyards for periodic tenancy? Councils might even begin subsiding the rates of good honest property owners by charging the housing deprived a small fee for their constant occupation of law-abiding space? Obviously the problem facing the housing deprived currently is not so much too much oppression but rather a lack of appropriate and compassionate oppression?
However, abolishing the minimum wage and monetising our housing crisis are simply low-hanging fruit. Even after we compassionately allow the homeless to sleep in our gardens (for a small fee) there are still too few resources to allow everyone to live the sort of decent upper-middleclass lifestyle that everyone understandably aspires to embrace. The sums do not add up.
So just we have to allow for a few of the weaker individuals in our herd to be able to wander off into the scrub and then peaceably drop off the twig. In fact we have to positively encourage it. For the good of our market and the planet, (which are, after all, roughly the same thing).
So in the end, if our nation wants to remain rich (and who doesn’t want to remain rich) – then there are only two options. We can allow the housing market to collapse and let all hell break loose on earth, and certainly end up with all of us butchering and eating one another (beginning with the young and tender): or our society can simply grow a pair and decide to take the whole capitalism thing to its obvious and logical conclusion. After all; it’s blindingly apparent that Jesus would currently have several negatively geared properties if he’d happened to arrive in Australia in about 1962. And he’d be in favour of serfdom. After all it’s in the Bible!
Yes I can employ a hundred people on the wages that might otherwise feed just twenty-five families. And in doing so I will know I am doing everyone a great service by spreading wealth and prosperity. But still, if we all want to live at a reasonable standard of living then, using any sort of objective measure, there are at least three times too many people on the globe. So they just gotta go. For the good of my property values, the obvious economic health of our Nation, and to fulfil prophecy.
Now I know it’s ridiculous in this modern age to talk about buying and selling people. But we don’t have to reintroduce slavery. Serfdom is enough. It certainly worked for a very long time and led to pretty stable property values for almost all of the middle-ages. Yes there is a little give and take involved (and maybe a bit of mass-murder) but isn’t that the same with every important principal? Plus it certainly fits well with the church. The church is simply longing for the good old days when excommunication really meant something!
Also think of all the time that would be saved in commuting if there were only ten percent as many commuters? After all. no serf will never want to (or be allowed to) move beyond the edge of their masters estate, so not only will the traffic be thin, everyone in the shops will be friendly and obedient, and you will only ever have to mix with other rich property owning folk. It’s such a moderate price for everyone else to pay!
So its sorted then? Good-oh? After all it’s simply a matter of going back to the way that we organised ourselves before we let all these stupid modern ideas about ‘democracy’ run completely rampant. If we abolish all welfare and the minimum wage and just allow employers to own their workers, plus allow the surplus segment of the population to wander off into the wilds on a permanent sightseeing trip; then the rich white property owners amongst us might even be able to retire rich!
I mean what’s the alternative?
