The moral guilt of the Left

Thoughts on socialism and leftism generally

The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Gavin » 31 Oct 2012, 09:22

Watching this interview with Paul Weston got me thinking a little more about Liviu's excellent point in another thread. The trouble is people of the middle-right such as Mr Weston (and no doubt many of us) are inclined to be rather calm and reasonable and subject matters to cool rational analysis. This is not to say we don't care - of course - though the Left are quick to claim this and claim the moral high ground in anything. We will have to use more of their own emotive language against them, as this seems to be the only kind of communication they can really understand.

I was therefore thinking, what does the Left stand for? What's evil about it?

  • Denying, repressing and belittling the natural impulses of women: i.e., to want a man to protect them, to want children, to generally be more emotional and interested in communication rather than, for example, mechanical engineering.
  • Favouring people of darker skin above people with lighter. "Positive discrimination" - racism.
  • At the same time, denying any differences between races at all - another kind of racism. (Which way do they want it?)
  • Glorifying casual sex and gangster culture. Apologising for it, excusing it away.
  • Re-writing history selectively in schools, in order to make their own culture appear look guilty and others appear glorious. This combines lying, newspeak, race hatred and treachery.
  • Supporting the dumbing down of the English language.
  • Destroying the family unit - see, in part, point 1.
  • Shutting down debate - intolerance shown by the MSM, educational establishments - introducing thought-crime - demonising those who disagree while advancing straw men and not properly addressing charges.
  • Actually legally limiting freedom of speech - exemplified by them refusing entry of Geert Wilders to the UK.
  • Moral cowardice, crumbling to threats within our own borders (see previous point).
  • General assumed superiority and arrogance.
  • Supporting fascist ideologies such as Islam.
  • Introducing - by force - the cultural destruction and replacement of a nation with inferior cultures who have demonstrably achieved little across the world.
  • Promoting the use of foul language and sick jokes as part of a general dumbing down of television, in particular the BBC which should only exist to promote higher values.
  • Seeking to undermine the very foundation of their freedom and the source of their revenue, capitalism, which though imperfect is the best system we can find.
  • Silently condoning the rape and pimping of teenage girls due to reverse racism.
  • Encouraging crime by offering incentives rather than deterrents to criminals.
  • Making general society a miserable place to live due to refusing to clamp down on low level anti-social behaviour such as spitting, swearing, cycling on pavements etc.
  • Encouraging an enormous underclass by again offering incentives rather than deterrents for people to have children out of wedlock and while completely unable to raise them independently and responsibly.

The Left is on the run, morally, at last, and so it should be. Why don't we say "far left" more? Perhaps because the left is far. These are weird, crazy ideas. They say "far right" when they mean just middle of the road, I think we can just say "left".

I probably didn't mention everything above - others are free to join in. Perhaps this list can serve as something as something of a summary of the topics we discuss on this site - the reasons why we feel moved to write at all. It may surprise the left to learn that they are actually moral motivations. It's about time they developed a little introspection.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Podori » 31 Oct 2012, 09:44

You summarised the left in the "Three Cups of Deceit" thread quite nicely nicely, Gavin:

... Leftists love to believe what they wish was true, and what makes them feel good and righteous, rather than what is actually true.


If you want to know what is evil about the left in my words, it is the self-centred emotionalism of their worldview, which disables the essential faculty of reason. They perniciously believe that as long as they feel good about themselves, they can do no wrong. Reason, rather than being a mental tool for evaluating public policy against evidence and prevailing social standards, is utterly perverted: it becomes merely a means of evaluating how good a certain policy will make them feel. For the left, the question is not is this policy good? but will this policy make me feel good about myself?

I submit this video as a proof. It is a campaign advert for President Barack Obama.



Would any right-thinking person be able to use children so cynically unless he believed it was for a higher good? Breaking eggs to make an omelette?

It is the fundamental evil of the left to place their emotions before all other considerations. In the pursuit of goodness, therefore, they cannot succeed, because rather than change themselves to be good according to external criteria, they wish to change other people, and even the definition of goodness itself, to satisfy their own feelings.
Podori
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 19 Sep 2012, 06:28
Location: South Korea

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Charlie » 19 Mar 2013, 13:50

From Gavin's list of what the Left stands for, I think this following post shows an example of the following:

"Shutting down debate - intolerance shown by the MSM, educational establishments - introducing thought-crime - demonising those who disagree while advancing straw men and not properly addressing charges."

I must be getting more paranoid as I get older. It's either that or Youtube is trying to smear me.

Is Youtube run by leftists? Surely not. But I've got a bone to pick with whoever or whatever it is that generates Youtube recommendations.

Whenever I have enough time to watch videos, I usually watch ones which indulge my musical tastes, which are namely jazz, soul and Brazilian music, all from the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Yes, as well as pointing out my faultless taste in music, that phrase is also (not so) subtly pointing out my impeccable, worldly, non-racist credentials in a very worthy, "aren't I a lovely person" leftist manner that will make some here want to vomit. I fully realise that, so please forgive me.

However, after also having watched one Pat Condell video, two with Peter Hitchens on QT and a debate with Theodore Dalrymple on Flemish TV, that's enough apparently for Youtube to recommend some Nick Griffin and BNP videos to me. That's right, I now have 2 or 3 videos especially "recommended for [me]" of the bozz-eyed racist in action doing something or other.

I still read 'lefty' authors like Nick Cohen and Paul Berman, and I've watched interviews with them - heck, I've even sat through interviews with Owen Jones on Youtube, but the gross assumptions as to one's political tendencies and tastes don't seem to have made it as far as giving me some lefty videos to watch. For example, there are no Hugo Chavez tributes coming up, or say, a video of "George Galloway's finest moments", whatever they are.

It's a subtle thing, but clearly I've committed a thought crime of some kind. Because conservative figures, "that lot on the right", must all be the same. They must all be holocaust-denying, wonky-eyed bigots. Could it be that the Labour party are controlling Youtube's recommendation policy? It's just as well I don't have any children yet. Living in Yorkshire, I'd probably have them taken away from me for my choice in youtube videos!
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Caleb » 20 Mar 2013, 01:35

A far more likely explanation, to me at least, is that recommendation lists are generated by looking at a particular video you've watched and then looking at all the other people who have watched that video and then finding a video that all of those people have also watched. For example, if you've watched a Mickey Mouse video and a whole bunch of other people have watched that Mickey Mouse video and have also watched a particular Donald Duck video, then Youtube will recommend that Donald Duck video to you.

I suspect it's completely automated like that. I don't think Youtube actually have people categorising each video. There must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of videos on Youtube. That would be a Herculean task.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Charlie » 20 Mar 2013, 19:59

I think you're right Caleb - it's probably all automated.

But I must say that for a couple of reasons, it still rankles that those videos now come up as recommendations…

First of all, it seems that I can't get rid of these 'recommendations' now! I think I've tried everything!

Second, I'm not so paranoid or ego-crazed to think that someone somewhere is watching all of my Internet activities -- what a boring job that would be! -- but even if the most probable explanation for those videos now appearing in my recommendations is true, I'm still struggling to figure out why these ones in particular are coming up.

For instance, you'd have a hard task convincing me that a BNP voter, supporter or sympathiser would regularly read anything that Theodore Dalrymple or Peter Hitchens write, just as I can't imagine anyone who reads the writings of the two aforementioned gentlemen wanting anything to do with Nick Griffin's lot. And that's putting it mildly. In fact, traditional notions of 'left' and 'right' don't really come into any debate about the BNP. We're talking about holocaust deniers and David Irving supporters here.

So then there's Pat Condell too. He's certainly outspoken in his critiques of the Left and religion, but he's also a vocal defender of Israel, which hardly makes any of his views sit nicely with those of the BNP. In fact, he's one of those people ready to lambast the Left's sucking up to radical Islam, where as we know, holocaust denial, Jew bashing and accompanying conspiracy theories are all too common.

Putting freedom of speech to one side, it leaves me - shall we say - feeling slightly soiled, and wondering if those who watch the above videos also keenly watch ones with Nick Griffin et al in them. I certainly hope not.

Anyway, as well as somewhat derailing the thread, I probably sound like I'm being needlessly super sensitive about all this - I don't mean to. My apologies.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Caleb » 21 Mar 2013, 00:16

I suspect that maybe there is, as you fear, quite an overlap between BNP supporters and people who watch the things you watch.

Probably the number of people who watch the kinds of videos you watch are very small to begin with, so getting even smaller numbers of people watching particular videos would generate certain recommendations. Outliers tend to have outsized effects in small populations.

To be honest, I wouldn't worry about it. I get all sorts of really stupid recommendations all the time, and not just on political videos.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Nathan » 10 May 2013, 17:58

The Guardian praising a dictator who has killed and tortured his opponents, destroyed his country's economy while lining his own pockets, appropriated private property and persecuted a perfectly harmless group of people just because of their skin colour.

Robert Mugabe: from liberation hero to villain to redeemed father of a nation
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Gavin » 19 May 2013, 14:18

Some people here might know that a few years ago I became quite annoyed with religious believers. This was mainly due to Islam, 9/11 and so on, but also it's true to say I didn't like Christians dictating "their truth" to everyone, in the same way that Pat Condell doesn't like it. At the same time, of course, I have respect for the cultural achievements of Christianity.

Anyway, I joined the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association just in the hope I could help rational sense prevail. But I found those organisations to be extremely leftist, with the NSS actually run by a gay couple. The hidden mission just seemed to be more socialism than atheism on "common sense" grounds, really. These organisations also seemed to be very light on Islam, which I regard as the primary threat to the UK (cowards?), while always laying into the Catholics etc. I found my home far better when I started reading Dalrymple, though he too, it must be said, is pretty light on Islam.

Getting to my point, one or two people from that period "friended" me on Facebook (something I hardly ever use). I had a look through some photos of one of them just now. He's had two daughters. Good for him. One photo showed one of them (about four years old) wearing a tiara, as little girls like to do. But in her hands had been placed a big sign saying "Abolish the monarchy". The caption reads "[Name of child]. Citizen, not subject".

What further evidence of the socialist leaning of such organisations is required? The socialists possibly mean well, but I think they are naive. Also, often hypocritical when their professed selfless views are examined. On this one, though, I'm waiting for Richard Dawkins to jump in and point to blatant child abuse. Should this young girl not be able to choose her views for herself? Should she be used in this manner even as a "joke"? I think not, but I also think I may have a long wait for Dawkins to object.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Paul » 19 May 2013, 21:15

That's awful Gavin, using a child like that. A little girl too - and your own daughter. It's almost as if these people are more possessed by their beliefs than love of their own children.

I wonder what 'abolish the monarchy' means? Does it mean quietly pensioning off the Queen (as if) and installing her in an old peoples' bungalow? I wouldn't be too sure of that. You probably wouldn't have to press too hard to find out it might mean murder. Whether or not he would find it disturbing to use his own daughter to project this subliminal message is not known but I wouldn't trust people on that one. It's not that far from an African child touting a Kalashnikov too. And how ironic the girl wears a tiara and probably has a head full of princesses and gallant princes and general heroism.

Citizen, not subject - ha. A thrall of the government then, rather than the subject of a realm. They won't see it like that of course, rather some ideal of a noble individual, ploughing their own unique way through life, unfettered by any obligations. Anarchy in other words, which they will always claim to be some kind of utopia, where everyone will just get along doing their own thing entirely.

I have a friend (he is) who may be as old, or older than this father. He's unmarried and childless however. He has said things like this. When asked what it means he will initially say things like 'string them all up' or 'burn them'.

Really? Killing eighty-something year old ladies? Women and children too?

He will say something like 'She has killed enough people herself'.

But that's simply an outrageous statement, an horrific slander and is ...... well, you can see what it is. Ridiculous and childish I'm sad to say. Sinister too, that educated adults can so easily say such things.

He isn't a thug though and in fact is one of the mildest people one would likely meet. He's the type to faint at a cut finger and in no way would be anywhere near any scene of violence. The things he proposes are really the last things he would wish to experience. He's university educated by the way, works in some capacity as a sub-contractor to the gov't and earns about £50k per annum. He doesn't like the Queen, and others, because (bottom line) they have more money than him. Or rather they have more money than other people - others he does not even know but feigns angst over their plight. Millions of people are the classic 'other' in his mind. Suggesting that he has far more money than many people (in the UK alone) and so it might be that he is strung up fails to cut the mustard. I can't remember some of his arguments in this direction. (By now my eyes are usually glazing over and I'm losing interest).

Pressing the matter though, he will climb down from summary executions. I need to press though. He once agreed that this proposal 'might be' a bit much. Just a bit. Instead than, the Queen (and all her entourage and family) should just be bunged into a standard granny flat and maybe a few council properties on a rough estate. See how they like it - ha!

But I pointed out that he doesn't live on a rough estate (he still lives with his parents in a life of ease) and he still has more money than the poor drug addicts who do live there. He side-steps these facts with more typical nonsensities.

What about all the thousands of staff at the various royal households who would then be out of work? This is a difficult moment for him, though he may scoff at the idea that the Queen is 'waited on' by 'thousands of serfs'. Eventually he has to say - 'tough'. It is tough isn't it, especially as some of them are (reputedly) only earning the minimum wage (I'm suspicious of that stat however). Ha- what triumph for him - the Queen only pays minimum wage eh? All the more reason then.

You don't employ anybody, for all your affluence, I may say. If you aren't going to simply give away money to the downtrodden poor then you could at least set up a little cottage industry type of business and employ a few on more than minimum wage. Silence!

So anyway, the Queen has narrowly evaded execution by a mob and maybe only one or two minor royals have been manhandled (ahem) and their small children haven't been liquidated and they're all now ensconsed on a council estate somewhere (in the freezing North he proposed) - so what then do we do with all the magnificent royal buiildings and the artefacts within?

Burn them to the ground! At this point I may get very much more vocal and berate him strongly for sheer vandalism and uncultured, barbarian thoughts. He will tend to climb down again, (maybe with a weak smile) and reluctantly agree ................... only to once say - 'Let all the immigrants live there', and, even worse - 'they doubtless deserve it because of all the things that have been done to them!' In addition 'we' (the UK public) deserve it because of all the things we have done.

Pointing out that this will swiftly result in vandalism of irreplaceable objects, pillage and arson doesn't seem to be a problem. If a clutch of immigrants burned down Buckingham Palace and had then nowhere to live - well, we British people would have to find them somewhere else. Maybe on the same council estate as the Queen and co. Right next door in fact. Fresh from their pillage and plunder, they would willingly live in the 'freezing North' and see what delights they could conjure up next. Serve her right too.

A couple of weeks ago he was arguing, in line with the supposed 'bedroom tax' (which isn't a tax at all) that all people who lived in large (private) houses which had more bedrooms than they needed should be evicted and downgraded to smaller properties. Even if they own the property outright - his eyes sparkle at the obvious unfair and sheer capitalistic notion of this. But surely that is government sponsored theft - on a grand scale? And where is the incentive for people ever to better themselves if we lived in such a society? And what about all the hard work that may have been undertaken by the home-owners to acquire the property in the first place?

I'm afraid those arguments might not be good enough. 'Tough' might be the answer. His central premise was 'use their own laws against 'them' '. And - 'see how they like it'. So in other words, take all properties off people but only if they hold opposing political views to his own - I presume.

That's me done for. I own my own home outright and have two bedrooms spare. Should I be evicted and downgraded? What about my workplace premises? Should I be dispossessed of that also and the place turned over to a collective of foreigners? And I would presumably just carry on, beaming at the 'fairness' of it all.

Not quite. I will be ok, because he knows me and knows I'm ok and have worked for it. But the worry is, the party leaders, the ones doing the evicting (along with a little looting, arson and executing thrown in) might not know me. My friend would meanwhile be cowering behind his mother's skirts and wouldn't be available to speak up for me.

And so on. In fact, under normal circumstances, he would have left home which would render his own parents with an at least one excess bedroom, so they would be for the chop too. I suspect anyway they probably have a three-bedroomed house and so are already over the limit in any case.

Why is he a friend? Many good reasons and I tend not to elicit or engage in politics much with him - unless I am feeling mischievous. He's actually very cultured in many ways, mild as a lamb and generous to a fault (though not to the lumpen poor). It's sad really - I often wonder if people like him are mentally ill.

I think it might be that people like this are emotionally retarded. Not a nice accusation to make, but there you go. If he had left home, lived on his own wits, bought his own property, ran a business, employed people, been married or co-habited, had children and so on, he would have a far better (adult) view of the world. I've done all of those things but he will only take on board anything I say with great reluctance ............ and probably only then for the duration of the evening. Next morning, he will be emotionally poisoned again. What a pity. He has in fact as broad a view of the adult world as I did when I was about ................ nine! Ok, he has a degree and a driving licence.

I feel quite bad talking about him and somewhat foolish for admitting I know him well. The best I can do is treat him as a 'project' and try to educate him. I do have back up among mutual friends.

His views on Scotland are priceless!
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Gavin » 31 May 2013, 21:47

Here's a time when it's actually worth reading the article as well as the comments on The Telegraph. Of course, I read the comments first.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Gavin » 04 Jul 2013, 10:39

The Left largely caused the HIV problems of the UK, such was their enthusiasm to import people from Africa during Tony Blair's period of government.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Martin » 13 Jul 2013, 18:39

Making general society a miserable place with low grade anti-social behaviour. I hope that you include in this people playing radios, stereos etc. incessantly when working, particularly outside while doing building work. I hope also that you include those who play car stereos loudly with the windows open & the bass turned up.
Anyway, at one time (about 20 years ago) I was a member of a well known British hard left group. At one point during an argument with one of the other members I was told that I should feel honoured to help those who were less fortunate than myself. I came to realise that this way of thinking is in fact a disease-I think it's called middle-class guilt. I think that this guilt is exploited by those who have less to get something for nothing out of those who have more. This philosophy assumes that those who are less fortunate are so through no fault of their own of course. If this assumption is challenged the whole edifice on which this philosophy is built collapses.
Where does this middle class guilt come from? This I must analyse & post my ideas on this site later.
While in this organisation one was always being appealed to-to make sacrifices. It always struck me that this was all one way, that some people were expected to make the sacrifices while others never did. I suspect that the appeal was an appeal to one's masochism.
The whole idea that the 'haves' support & help the 'have-nots' seems to me totally counter productive. It discourages the 'have-nots' from striving to better their position & drives the better off members out of the organisation. The result is finally a core of useless scrounging leeches who wait opportunistically to suck the goodness from any passing person who shows an interest in them. During my time in the organisation I saw many better off people join & very swiftly leave!
Towards the end of my time in this organisation I became aware of a tendency to elevate some of the lowest cultural products of our society such as soap operas & pop music because the lowest orders of society are assumed to like these things. By doing so it was probably trying to show democratic solidarity with these people. In vain did I point out to these people that we are trying to elevate the disconsolate & oppressed partly by elevating their cultural level, not descending & wallowing in their cultural morass.
Martin
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 25 Jun 2013, 19:13
Location: Coventry, United Kingdom

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Gavin » 09 Aug 2013, 17:04

Perhaps the young lad below, currently having some trouble balancing his pro-Muslim and his gay/left-wing interests, will be a sensible conservative by the time he hits his late thirties!

Screen Shot 2013-08-08 at 20.33.41.png
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Nathan » 09 May 2014, 22:17

Next up on the charge sheet:

a) Painting over a UKIP billboard because "it also went against everything that I feel political discourse should be about", i.e. you consider yourself offended by it and consider yourself entitled to stop other people from being able to see it and make up their own mind.
b) Giving a platform for somebody to boast about censoring a political point of view under the subheading "Comment is free", and then deleting what must be well over a hundred comments underneath.

I've never heard of Bill Drummond before, but apparently he is some kind of professional attention-seeker who once burned a million pounds as a publicity stunt.

The self-righteousness oozing out of the article below is just unreal! I'd feel embarrassed for anybody my age (30) who hadn't long since grown out of that level of arrogance and childishness, but it's hard to put into words what I think about a man who does something like this at sixty-one years old...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... grey-paint
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: The moral guilt of the Left

Postby Elliott » 11 May 2014, 01:00

It's disappointing when people you admire turn out to be idiots. Bill Drummond was one half of the early 90s house duo the KLF - they did some good songs.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Next

Return to Socialism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Login Form

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.