It is perfectly possible to argue that reforms to benefits and the welfare state are necessary - indeed I would support the reintroduction of universality and the development of a citizen's income - but the hate-filled bile about scroungers, parasites, immigrants and the remainder of the Mail's pantheon of petty bourgeois bogeymen merely suggests that the paper is written by scum, highly-skilled but evil parasites whose moral compass spins round back to the rag's enthusiastic backing for Mussolini.
The whack-job element is widespread - there has been a huge outcry over the monstering of a transgender teacher by the epitome of thuggish ignorance Richard Littlejohn, which may well have been a contributory factor in the victim's suicide. The bullying, foul-mouthed hypocrite who edits the rag has refused even to acknowledge any responsibility - Stanley Baldwin's harlot (originally aimed at Lord Beaverbrook) would be turning in her grave at this monstrous travesty of justice.
Now we have the nutcases's nutcase, the lovely Melanie Phillips, opining that the actions of a deranged arsonist are the product of the welfare state. Now Ms Phillips, when she isn't being given airtime to spout the kind of hate speech that she would object to were it to emanate from any of us who are less than 110% behind the Israeli government, spends most of her time looking for and exposing non-existent left-wing conspiracies, in much the same way that the neo-cons have developed in the USA. She represents the kind of pseudo-intellectual icing for the racist, xenophobic snobbery that underpins the Mail's worldview.
Where Phillips and her ilk betray every form of civilised and intelligent discourse is in their identification of challenge and alternative opinions with subversion and/or stupidity. It is perfectly possible to argue that the welfare state should not be used to support a lifestyle evidenced by the arsonists - but it is also equally possible and right to argue that his (and his conspirators') behaviour would be equally repugnant had he been an upstanding, taxpaying member of society with net curtains and a retrospective fixation on the 1950s.
This is the tip of a delusional iceberg - where everything is wrong with the world because the white lower middle classes are not able to dictate the terms of existence to everyone else in the world. It feeds the fear of the other that reinforces ignorance and social breakdown - feeding and promoting irrational fears of the world outside contribute to atomisation rather than challenging it, and the hatred and paranoia about anything not "English" would be risible were it not taken so seriously.
The Mail is a parasitic disease that, in a free country, should only be controlled by constant attack and, where possible, being boycotted so that its commercial justification and lifeblood is sucked out. Where it breaks the law, it should be challenged - its hate, narrow-mindedness and stereotyping make it highly vulnerable to prosecution, and its readers shamed where possible. They epitomise the "I'm not racist/fascist/ignorant but..." tendency, the deniers and the fellow-travellers. Britain's March Violets would all read the Mail.
As for the celebrity, sex-obsessed online presence, the less said the better.
The depths to which the rag has sunk are contemptible, as are those who act as its apologists. It has sunk to the same depths as the organs of totalitarian states - maybe a hybrid of Goebbels's Racial Observer and late-period Pravda - in its editorialising and presentation of dictatorial prejudice as truth. The Mail is nasty, evil and insidious. Its recent behaviour suggests that its previous function, as a cheap substitute for Andrex, could create lasting physical damage beyond just being a right-wing pain in the backside.