Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Lefty mentals

Matt Sinclair has written more on the Archbishop's failings. In the course of it, he takes a couple of swipes at those on the Left.
I'm afraid to say that Gracchi, and many others, are incredibly arrogant about why people were angered by the Archbishop's remarks. They leap straight to the view that the British people are reactionary simpletons, who are being easily sold lies by the media, instead of trying to understand why they are angry. This attitude is even clearer in some other defences of the Archbishop. I hate to sound partisan but it speaks poorly of many on the Left's attitude to ordinary people that they are so quick to call them idiots.

This isn't, of course, surprising at all. The entire concept of socialism is based around the idea that a large part of the population is to fucking thick to be able to look after themselves. Because these people are so fucking thick, they need wise leaders to look after them and, naturally, everyone seems themselves as that wise leader.

It is an irritating and patronising attitude but is just another reason why I hate bloody socialists. It's also one of the main reasons why Leftist governments always move inexorably towards totalitarianism: after all, if you know better than the general populace on one issue, why not all issues?


Tomrat247 said...

"..The entire concept of socialism is based around the idea that a large part of the population is too fucking thick to be able to look after themselves. Because these people are so fucking thick, they need wise leaders to look after them and, naturally, everyone seems themselves as that wise leader."
Come now DK - surely someone as well read as you knows that that isn't the definition of socialism but of fascism; I agree with you that the 2 are only disparate in theory - in practice their tends to be little difference.

I think I see the problem here though - Discussions on the nature of fascism and fascists, particularly in the MSM, have become victims of Godwin's law alongside Nazism; this is a very silly thing to do but inevitable; Nazism was a fascist ideology thus associations to a theorem of governance will always have bias judgements.

The problem is made worse still - the inability to attack fasco-socialism means that true historical greviences can go unsung - a point EU referrendum makes often regarding the lack of outcry against communist genocide.

thud said...

My stance on islam is a well considered one formulated by the experience of twenty odd years.To the left I'm a mindless islamaphobe and one way or the other they want to cure me...oh happy day!

Englishsummer said...

Are these the same socialist cretins that have introduced a bill to ban white people from standing in eight constituancies in the next general election then?.

From the desk of Michael Huntsman on Mon, 2008-02-11 13:35
Rarely a day goes by without a whopping piece of hypocrisy on the part of the British Labour Party, for much of their political life is one big act of hypocrisy. Thus this weekend we have them facing both ways at once on matters of race.

On the one hand they have joined in the general chorus of denunciation of Archbishop Booby’s suggestion that Sharia Law be afforded status and recognition, and thereby approbation, within the law of England and Wales. On this the Labour Party have got it right.

At almost the same moment, however, Labour’s deputy leader Harriett Harman is found to be supportive of the notion that the law be changed to enable ‘all-black’ shortlists to be drawn up for the selection of candidates for election to Parliament by individual constituencies.

As the report says:

White candidates should be barred from standing for Parliament in up to eight constituencies in order to get more black and Asian MPs elected, says a controversial report commissioned by Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman.

Just savour those words: ‘white candidates should be barred.’ It has taken us a thousand years or so to arrive at a state of constitutional affairs whereby any man or woman might seek to stand for Parliament regardless of sex, race, colour, religious creed, political philosophy or sexual orientation and for the party of one’s personal taste. Now, if Labour’s obnoxious plan were to succeed, our people would be legally excluded from standing for Parliament in the constituency of their choice for the party of their choice simply because of the white colour of their skin.

Such is Labour extremism that it is prepared to contemplate the introduction of a measure that is flagrantly in breach of the right not to be discriminated against “on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”, which phraseology I have lifted intact from Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. next general election

verity said...

I think - I'd have to research it in European "law", so probably won't bother - that the rights of the indigenous peoples must always be respected and the indigenes of any country must not be aggressed by settlers.

If only we could find that piece of One Worlder legislation - it's in there somewhere, Goddammit - we could bugger this whole multiculti effluent in one.

verity said...

Actually, I think it's some UN shit somewhere. But it's enshrined by some lefty official unelected lawgiver somewhere - to protect the Inuit from Starbucks or having parking lots imposed on them or whatever.

Anyway, it's in there somewhere, enshrined in "international law" - of which there is no such thing, but don't tell them. Let's use it for our side.

mitch said...

Surely people who believe in socialism should be sectioned or at least publicly laughed at.They keep trying to turn us into a hive like insect colony and we keep kicking the fools out.

Tomrat247 said...


Socialism is a perfectly valid theory for governance, as is fascism, communism, despotism and theocracies; it is only when the human element is brought to bear on these that they truly go horribly wrong. This is also what leads Liberterianism, and the knife edge of minarchism to be the most effective form of human governance available - recognise that people are human and go from there. We shouldn't "lock people up" for believing in socialism - that makes us no better than those fascists masquerading as socialists who would do the same for dissenting voices elsewhere.

On a separate note there should be a counter paper to that idiocy known as socialist worker that I see peddled on the streets of Leeds whenever there's a "naff to Bush" bandwagon going around the MSM - Liberterian Worker anyone? Or does one exist and living in the north means I've missed it?

Travis Bickle said...

I can only imagine the outcry in Spain if any politician suggested that Spaniards would be barred from standing for election, yet in this country 99% of the population are completely unaware or couldn't give a stuff. That is why the inevitable creep to our once proud nation becoming an Islamic region of EUSSR will continue unabated, with all political parties complicit in this deception. And when that happens do you think our new masters will give a stuff about their customs, festival and flag offending other races and religions, or incorporate aspects of western law into their sharia regime?

Ed said...

DK thank you for putting into words exactly why I can't stand statists whether they call themselves left or right.

Ted Heath took us into the EEC because he thought that the English as a whole were too stupid to govern themselves. It must have been temporary stupidity that caused the English to put him in charge.

Umbongo said...


It was him or Wilson and, BTW, Heath's mandate in respect of the EEC was "to negotiate: no more, no less". So not only was he a reasonable choice, bearing in mind the alternative, he was also a liar.

While we're on the subject, although the PM at the time had a decent salary and pension, nobody has ever explained how Heath managed to buy the succession of ocean-going sailing boats he ended up owning. Yes he "worked" in the City for a bit with Brown Shipley. The position was part of the arrangements by the high and mighty in the Conservative Party to give him some pocket money but it was never big money. After his removal from leadership of the Conservative Party more money was shovelled to him in the way of generous (some might say over-generous) advances on his incredibly dull books. Perhaps one of his europhile acolytes and sailing buddies (Lord Hurd comes to mind) could shed some light on this.

Peter Spence said...

"It is an irritating and patronising attitude..."

It certainly is, and most effectively demonstrated on this blog by commentator A&E Charge Nurse.