I think that one of the things that I dislike about Lefties is their absolute fucking debilitating misery; for Lefties everything is awful and unfair, and the world is a horrible place because we filthy, wasteful, greedy humans inhabit it. They are doomed always to be disappointed because the equality that they crave simply is not possible to achieve—if only because it goes totally against the grain of the animal that is still inherent in our genes, no matter how much we try to deny it or suppress it with our "civilised" principles.
What better example of this argument than the Soviet Union, or any of the other "workers' paradises" that have been set up over the last century? Corrupt, totalitarian regimes exist because humans do not want to be equal: the genetic desire to be the most viable breeding partner craves high status however that might be achieved, whether through money, power, class or some other indicatior. A few decades of egalitarian dictatorship will not overturn 64 million years of genetic heritage, no matter what the Lefties think. And life under the Communist regimes was so fucking miserable.
It is the constant life-sapping negativity of Lefties that really pisses me off. Let's take this little passage shall we?
The thing is, this ‘thirty years of hurt’/cheating-foreigners-robbed-us/we-didn’t-actually-lose psychosis is merely a minor symptom of a deeper malaise: the failure to accept that we, as a country, no longer stride the world stage like the mighty planet-fucking colossus we were in our days of empire.
Ah, yes. Remember, boys and girls, the Empire did not bring prosperity, education, better working conditions and a much-enhanced standard of life to millions of people: no, it was a "planet-fucking colossus".
Perhaps it is the Left's antithesis to religion that leads them to forget that man was allegedly given "dominion over all the beasts of the field". "Dominion" you note, not "a moral responsibility for the welfare of". This planet and its inhabitants are a tool for humankind to advance itself: no other creature even comes close to our capabilities, so we are, by default, the masters of all that we survey. After all, not even gorillas can draw up a written contract detailing their property rights and, that talentless arsehole Steve Bell notwithstanding, even George Bush has a far higher mental capacity—and the concomitant ability to use it—than a fucking chimp. We are merely animals but we are the current peak of evolution and, like any other animal, we attempt to maximise our ability to survive. Note that this means not merely surviving, but making life as easy as possible to ensure the maximum likelihood of survival. Sure, it is in our interests to protect some wildlife and not totally to screw up the whole planet, but not at the expense of human lives. We do these things because it is in our interests, not those of fucking pandas (an evolutionary dead-end if ever I've seen one, and an example of how selective pressure requires species to adapt or die).
Yes, we are merely animals: and tribal ones at that. These days our tribal associations tend to be looser than they were a few thousand years ago, and our tribes tend to be somewhat larger: they consist of countries of people, except in primitive societies such as Africa, with their own tribal identity and with a ferocious rivalry with the other tribes. This is one reason why the EU integration project is doomed to failure (a fact which anyone with his head not rammed up his arse, and any reasonable observation of the French at the EU bargaining table, could see).
And what of this tribe's—that is to say Britain's (for even if you are a aggressively parochial Scot or pusillanimous Welshman, you still share more with your neighbouring tribe of Englishmen, even the most appalling ones (balance there: do you see?), than you do with any other)—role in the world? How should we view that?
It’s this insecurity that leads people like Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to use phrases like ‘punch above our weight’ when talking of our role in world affairs.
The trouble is, and it is something that is a source of eternal shame to Lefties, that we already do punch well above our weight. Britain is one of the tiniest countries in the world and one of the more isolated, in relative terms; sure, that has been a boon in many ways, both in repelling unwanted invasions and in leading to the necessary construction of what was once the largest and most powerful Navy in the world.
And yet we have one of the largest, most stable and most profitable economies in the world—notwithstanding our Cyclopean Lefty Chancellor's attempts to fuck it up. We do influence world affairs to a far greater extent than is warranted for a pissy little island at the tip of north west Europe; much of this is because we tend to side with the world's only remaining superpower (it certainly isn't because of our role as the EU's whipping-boy) but also because it really wasn't so long ago that we ruled a significant proportion of the globe.
And, despite what the Left will try to tell you, we are not hated around the world for it: remember those ecstatic parades, the signs saying "the British are here to save us" in Sierra Leone when we finally got off our arses to help the poor fuckers? Remember when 90% of Gibraltar voted to tell the government to fuck off when they were trying to offload the rock? And I remember talking to one of the staff at school who was born on the Falklands: she recounted the euphoria when the Falklanders realised that the British were not, as expected, going to leave them to the tender mercies of the Argentinian junta.
And yet, what does the Left concentrate on? Sierra Leone: well the whole thing was our fault wasn't it (even though they had been independent for nearly 40 years before the civil war). Well, we should give Gibraltar back to the Spanish. Oh, well, the Falklands is a geographical and historical anomaly and Thatcher only invaded to boost her electoral ratings. Oh and don't forget that we sank the ARA General Belgrano, which was a very naughty thing to do (leave aside the fact that the most powerful Argentine warship was steaming round in an obvious attempt to attack the British fleet from behind (a tactical supposition which has since been confirmed by the Belgrano's captain)). Actually, please excuse me while I make a short diversion to sink this particular "controversy" once and for all, right fucking now, because I am really fed to the back teeth of hearing about it. [All emphasis mine—DK]
There was some controversy surrounding the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano:
At the time of the attacks the ship was sailing away from the Falkland Islands.
Though the ship was heading away from the Falkland islands, it had been moving towards the [British] task force all the previous day. It had only turned around because an airstrike on the task force was cancelled, because there was not enough wind to launch planes from the aircraft carrier operating to the north of the Falklands. The ship had in fact been ordered back towards the coast to wait for more favourable conditions for an attack. Hector Bonzo, captain of the Belgrano commented on this move "We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders".
Also the Belgrano could have been brought about in minutes and entered a region of shallow water called Burdwood Bank in a few hours, where it would have been impossible for the trailing British submarine to follow.
The ship was outside the 200 mile (370 km) exclusion zone.
Though the ship was outside of the 200 mile exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action — on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be targeted. Argentine Rear-Admiral Allara who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of said, "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano". Also the rules of engagement were changed specifically to permit the engagement of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking.
The sinking of the ship hardened the stance of the Argentine government and effectively ended any chances of a peaceful settlement.
The sinking of the Belgrano certainly was the single largest loss of life in the conflict, however it took place after a day of fighting which had seen the deaths of several Argentine pilots. As far as both sides were concerned the shooting war had already begun. The British were likely never to accept anything less than the return of the Islands, which the Argentinians were not likely to do.
Key decision makers were not aware that the ship was sailing away from the Falklands at the time the order was given.
According to the British historian, Sir Lawrence Freedman, in a new book written in 2005, neither Margaret Thatcher nor the Cabinet were aware of the Belgrano's change of course before the cruiser was attacked, as information from HMS Conqueror was not passed on to the MoD or Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward (commander of the RN task force). However, in his book One Hundred Days Admiral Woodward makes it clear that he regarded (correctly as it turned out) that the Belgrano was part of a southern part of a pincer movement aimed at the task force, and had to be sunk quickly. He wrote:The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention.
OK, so can we just drop that particular fallacy? Because if you still maintain that the sinking was illegal, or in any other way reprehensible, you are just wrong. Good, back to the main item.
The point is that Lefties are inherently ashamed of our history, and the society and culture which enabled us to do the things that we do. This guilt has led to the attempted destruction of this country and its high place in the world, and to the attempted masking of the good and glorious parts of our history.
The single most damaging incident was the despicable grovelling to the EEC indulged in by that fat cunt traitor, Edward Heath; an arrogant shit of the worst sort, a lame excuse for a man who, if there were any justice in the world, would have been strangled at birth. Believe me, if I had a time machine, I'd have no hesitation in bashing the young Heath's head in with a brick. His desperate shame (for Heath attitude was that of a fucking Lefty; whichever cunt let him into the Tory party should also die) and his pathetic willingness to please the French and Germans—admittedly bolstered by the total fucking u of the economy by the Labour party which had led to the devaluation of the pound in 1967—led to Britain being accepted into the EEC under the most appallingly unfavourable terms (particularly in the matter of fishing rights); his actions, along with the appalling mismanagement of the economy which followed under the Socialists, condemned Britain to a decade of economic failure which saw us, in 1976, having to borrow £3.9 billion from the IMF to keep the government solvent. To add insult to injury, the porcine, dribbling twat admitted in his diaries, published in the mid-90s, that he had known all along that a federal superstate was the end intention of the EEC: strangely, he was never censured for lying to both the electorate and the House about this; presumably because, by the time that this information was released, the EU already controlled so much of our legislature that it would be totally against any government's interests to broadcast Heath's revelation (and, of course, the Major government was desperately trying to pretend that a federal superstate was not, in fact, the end product).
Because, and let me make this absolutely clear, Britain has continued to "punch above our weight" despite the best efforts of the EU. We will only become irrelevent if we allow our foreign policy to become completely subsumed into that of the EU's; that organisation is, essentially, an isolationist, protectionist federation of countries who have long since turned their backs in the events of the rest of the world (mainly because they kept on losing).
We must leave, not only because it is utterly immoral to remain part of this murderous organisation, but because it sets our sights so low. Whatever Toni's prevarications about Iraq, we are at least attempting to do some good out there: the EU doesn't even pretend to do so. It simply protects its industries, impoverishing both its own inhabitants and those, in the developing world, for whom the levels of EU tariffs mean the difference between life and death. It's non-interventionalist policies—something that the US was heavily criticised for in the early and mid part of the twentieth century (especially during WWII)—have ensured the continued rule of insane fuckers like Mugabe and Amin and, not least by a policy of neglect, ensured the deaths of millions and the misery of many more. They fuck over those who can least afford it, whilst patronisingly handing millions to the corrupt fuckers who murder and starve their own people. The EU, a broadly socialist organisation (although organisation does make it sound too... well... organised for a body whose accounts haven't been signed off for 11 years), i.e. an organisation of the Left, causing misery: well, who would have thunk it?
We have a duty to leave. If you believe in any kind of brotherhood of mankind, we have a duty to the poor of the world to buy their products, to trade freely with them—both in terms of products and in information—and thus help to build stable economies and encourage stable societies. In this way, we will help them and continue to punch above our weight through the strength of our trading links rather than our weaponry. Further, we will punch above our weight and do some good in the world, whilst still enriching ourselves. The British Empire became rich through world-wide trade, not by becoming some little protectionist entity, allied with useless arseholes like the French.
We should once more invest in our technical research and development, and become innovators again. We should aim to become one of the trading hubs of the world, opening our markets to all comers, to all countries. The government should shrink and give people their fucking money back, so that we can return to the system of privately-funded research and innovation which characterised the great technical, scientific and engineering advancements of the Victorian age.
Most of all, we should not say, "come on, guys, let's face it: we just aren't what we used to be": we should stand up and say, "we aren't what we used to be, but we are going to fix that. We are not only going to punch above our weight, but we are going to take on the whole boxing fraternity!"
It is significant that everyone seems to drop the "Great" before the "Britain" these days; it is because they are defeatist fucks. We need a leader who will stand before us and say "Britain shall be great again!" Were they to do this, it would win the Tories hundreds of elections to come, it would cure our national malaise—which is essentially predicated on a lack of hope and a lack of perceived purpose in, and control over, our lives—and unite us in an endeavour which extends beyond the petty problems of our little lives.
So, suspend your disbelief: imagine that we are already on our way to this end, and stand up and say it with me: "Britain shall be great again! We will make it happen! We shall once again bestride the world as a colossus, a benfactor to the poor and an example to those that would be rich! See the grand project and envy the people of Great Britain; for they have both riches and purpose and are thus both free and happy!"
There, don't you feel better?
UPDATE: I'm still playing about with software so, shoud any of you been interested in such a thing, you can hear me reading an edited version of this article (10.8MB MP3).