Trying to understand liberals

Thoughts on socialism and leftism generally

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Gavin » 05 Aug 2014, 15:11

I think it's a bit homophobic that they sometimes mention "pansies" on Gardener's Question Time too, actually. They're just a bunch of homophobic racists on there! Probably Islamophobic too, I bet... Phobic, phobic - I'm actually phobic-phobic. Even the title of that programme is a slur against gay people, come to think of it - probably deliberate, I'll wager. There is a suspicious lack of ethnic minorities on the programme too. No doubt they block them from entering the studio - just like the way they probably block them from attending historical events, and I'd like to say that having no skills and nothing better to do, I am very offended on their behalf!

But, in further info, did you know that pansies are quite often killed off by other flowers if they're in a hanging basket? They're a bit wimpy. That'll be why the term came about. It'll probably be banned soon.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Charlie » 05 Aug 2014, 17:30

Funnily enough, I went into my garden today and noticed how privileged and cisgendered some of the plants were. "Hideously white", one could say. What's more, not only did the conifers have a rather racist look about them, I'm pretty sure that one herbaceous border in particular was mumbling something about the patriarchy and threatening to vote for UKIP as I walked past it.

It was then that I noticed some weeds, or "disadvantaged, oppressed victim plants" as I like to call them. I couldn't just rip them out, though - I'm a good person, you see, and they were but the victims of a vicious, capitalist garden. The 99%.

In all seriousness, can you imagine Dr (Ha!) Ben Pitcher at a party? No, neither can I...
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Gavin » 05 Aug 2014, 18:18

Don't be ungood, Charlie! Are you saying you seriously have white flowers in your garden? You must be some kind of racist. You should have black flowers, or at least some black flowers, to show that you're not favouring the white ones above the black ones (haven't you read Ba Ba Rainbow Sheep?). But be careful: if perchance you can't find any black flowers, don't you dare "black them up" because that would be very racist indeed. If that leaves you in something of a dilemma, that's your problem to solve - use your "white privilege", I guess!
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Charlie » 05 Aug 2014, 18:40

Well, Gavin, before anyone strings me up for my thought crime, I'd just like everyone to know that I'm aiming for the rainbow garden...

Nurse!
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Paul » 06 Aug 2014, 00:11

My goodness what a scenario. Much amusement at the replies, particularly Gavin's first one.

What did I say earlier in the thread? Didn't Paul Weston say it as well? (I'll watch that video again in a minute). They're insane. There's no reasoning with them and attempting to do so will sap one's own sanity. They deserve nothing other than derision, and their feelings be damned.

But yes, soon it will be illegal to pull up weeds. They'll have rights and the essence of diversity will be upon them. How marvellous though that they have in fact directly equated black people and the like with weeds. I wonder how the ethnic minorities feel about that?

He's an 'academic'. Says it all these days. Never trust an intellectual you might say - except that's how Pol Pot started out and he was a communist. But really, when one hears that someone is an intellectual or an academic these days, below the age of say....seventy? - one can sense one's eyes beginning to glaze over and a rapid loss of interest taking hold.

I've been on Facebook as usual for short periods each evening (or most evenings). I'm almost exclusively on a couple of trade/craft/work related groups on there (I'm more highbrow than thou, etc, etc - ahem) but of course I have a 'wall'.

Almost every one of the females I happen to know are strident lefties in one way or another - or in all of them. It's portrayed very much by this faux liberalism they profess. I don't have any 'friends' on FB who are female whom I do not know in real life. I have several male 'friends', including many Americans, whom I do not know in the real world, but by virtue of trade and craft.

The females I know are all over their 'walls' with constant and strident posts about the following, in any and every order:

Gaza
Child abuse - everywhere, all the time.
Fracking for shale gas
Chemtrails from aircraft
The Tories
Margaret Thatcher (still)
More child abuse.

I did a casual post about having a wren's nest in the ceiling beams of the workshop premises. I've been watching the tiny parents flit in and out all day with insects and grubs. The obvious chicks within are cheeping loudly.

A female I know usurped this post thread by eventually saying that mass farming of animals was unsustainable and is ruining the planet. We all need to change to polycultural methods of farming (?). We'll 'all' just need to work a bit harder at it.

She's on the dole, single-parent, and spends all day on FB and Twitter - and the Daily Mail website finding things to be offended about. Her ten year old son can't read and write properly - or at all really. Neither can he read a clock face. She's also particularly concerned about child abuse!

Also, sending food by the multi-ton to Africa in famine relief is just not enough. We shouldn't be 'exploiting them' at the same time. If we weren't doing that they would have greater diversity of all species, plant and animal, and they could use that to build themselves a more sustainable future!

Where do you begin?
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Paul » 09 Aug 2014, 07:16

Further to my previous post here comes more Facebook fun by one of my said female 'friends'. She's whipped up quite a storm and thankfully received some flak for it, from two other females. Not all is lost. This post could or should go under 'leftist hypocrisy' but here we go. This is what my 'friend' has said:

Under a picture of the Queen, she writes:

"This thing has an accumulated wealth of over 17 trillion pounds, enough to completely eradicate world poverty and hunger 10 times over and still be a multi-trillionaire, yet she just sits on it while millions of children die each year from hunger. F*** her jubilee!!!"

Where does one begin with that?

'Thing' - that's the level of respect she has for someone she has decided not to like. The fact the Queen is female, a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother cuts no ice at all. Neither does the fact she's over 80 years old and still working.

Is the Queen really worth 17 trillion pounds, roughly the same figure as the entire US national debt, so I am informed elsewhere? Let's say by some definition she actually is worth that much. Given there's almost 7 billion people on the planet, my calculation is that the Queen could give every single person roughly £2500 - just the once. Then the money has gone. Then what? This is presuming of course that she successfully sells all her hard assets - castles, palace, paintings, jewels, etc,etc. Even though they don't actually belong to her as such. If she can't do that then the starving millions in Africa will have to just receive the paintings directly, or maybe a few bricks from the castles or the odd suit of armour. Then they can eat those and survive - obviously.

Maybe my maths is wrong. But eradicating poverty 10 times over and still having trillions left doesn't seem to add up to me.

Two of her 'anti-fracking group' friends have taken her to task and have actually fallen out with her, Facebook style - no more 'friend' status and thence deleted. What they probably don't know is that she has considerably more money than about five billion (?) people on the planet and additionally I estimate she has more wealth than a considerable number of people in her own town. She lives in a large semi-detached house in a desirable area of town, owned outright and passing into her family (via her husband) from a degree of inheritance. The last time I went past there were three vehicles on the driveway. Her husband is self-employed and operates for a healthy profit. Her son has recently moved into a second house owned by herself/husband. She's one of the most bourgeois people I know.

She's spent the last 30 years harping on about the closure of coal mines - because of 'jobs'. Jobs she had no intention of ever doing herself, nor planned for her husband and son to be doing. There was also no mention of the environment. Now she's anti-fracking and it's all because of the environment and jobs have never been mentioned. Of course both situations give rise to a possibility of attacking the incumbent Conservative government of the time. Margaret Thatcher (rubs hands with unholy glee) back in the days of mine closures, and David Cameron and co today.

She's never had a job that I recall, though she has raised three children and remained married for about 35 years. In circumstances other than the above, what she's done might be laudable. It's traditional and she must have some family loyalty. She is in fact quite the small 'c' conservative, but unfortunately (for everyone who has to listen to her) she doesn't even realise this. Her affluence and leisure time has merely given rise the the kind of bile above, thinly masking a kind of blood-lust and wickedness.

Why am I her 'friend' and why do I not 'delete' her? Well, I do know her husband and it is to our sometimes mutual commercial advantage to trade with each other now and then. I never let him owe me money though because it's then the very devil to get paid. They don't like handing over money, although he never spouts Leftist principles at all. In fact he never gets involved and I never see him on FB. He's probably too embarrassed by the antics of his wife. I don't know how he puts up with her, though that's not for me to say.

She also knows my Mother and my daughter and her daughter is good friends with my daughter and etc, etc. I just have to keep quiet and experience her drivel. Gosh I really don't like her.....
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Mike » 09 Aug 2014, 09:09

"This thing has an accumulated wealth of over 17 trillion pounds, enough to completely eradicate world poverty and hunger 10 times over and still be a multi-trillionaire, yet she just sits on it while millions of children die each year from hunger. F*** her jubilee!!!"


Would I surmise correctly that this lady would be the first to cry, in other contexts, "It's not all about money!"?

And 17 trillion? I'm calling nonsense (on other forums I would use a different term) loud and clear on that.
Mike
 
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Aug 2011, 11:08
Location: Australia

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Paul » 10 Aug 2014, 00:02

Yes Mike, you're right.

It wouldn't be all about money if the money in question was anything to do what's stashed away in a leftists hoard. It would however be all about money if it was coming their way. This is not conjecture, I have evidence of my own going back decades, regarding lefties of all shades (there are many shades). Typical leftist hypocrisy as we know.

They're all greedy, and selfish. All their supposed angst and bleeding heart is selfish, as in self-serving, to portray themselves as oppressed and yet noble victims too. By extension, it's a grab for power. Again, we know this.

This outrage is sheer envy. There's a lot of money and it's not coming her way. She claims she wants to send the money elsewhere (everywhere) and that might be true to a degree. It's simple envy and dispossession. If I can't have it, then neither can you.

She doesn't care about the starving millions, even the children, other than maybe abstractedly, as we all no doubt do. We all don't like the idea of starving children but beyond that.......

Neither did she care about the coal miners, nor the other industrial workers, nor the Palestinians, and etc. She only cares about the environment regarding fracking in so far as it might encroach quite close to her own back yard.

It's just the one person we may say and I'm ranting on about it because it's close to home, but the problem is there are millions of people like this. Yes millions, it's not an exaggeration.

I agree about the seemingly made-up figure, as such an unknown quantity can always be. I did say equal to the US national debt but of course they're not that badly off. Theirs is only 17 trillion dollars not pounds! Or so I'm
told.

But how much is the Queen worth? Strictly speaking of course we mean the Crown. From many points of view - priceless. Easily more than 17 trillion which is just a number. But if we must play hard figures, how much are the Crown Jewels worth? You could say £1 trillion, if you wanted. America would probably buy them! Sell them to the Saudis maybe? Have an auction. Obviously it would make great TV.....

How much is the palace worth? Another trillion? Windsor Castle? Balmoral? The trillions are mounting up and we haven't got near the land and the paintings yet. It's all silly of course.

I remember having an argument several years ago on a cricket forum, where lefties lurked. It was when the CERN LHC machine was announced as ready. Everyone was cooing over the science but of course the media had gleefully announced the cost of it all. More than £10 billion I think. Forty billion rings a bell. Where's the Queen when you need her?

But there were howls of outrage - all about the money. The perennial 'feed the kids of Africa' cry was abroad. They couldn't get into their heads that you can't eat 40 billion pounds. That the cost reflected the salaries of thousands of scientists and thousands more construction workers. Indeed there will have been millions of tons of material used in the construction but so what? You can't eat rock and metal and particle-beam machines. Neither can all the people involved become successful farmers and suddenly feed Africa.

It just goes to show the actual dumbness of the common left. Everything comes down to an economic unit. It is always ALL about the money. Resources or real wealth never comes into it. Neither does production.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Elliott » 10 Aug 2014, 13:10

Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Mike » 10 Aug 2014, 23:52

Elliott wrote:£44.5 billion


Pfft. Still more than enough to end world hunger and poverty, end all current wars, and put a stop to global warming single-handedly, surely?
Mike
 
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Aug 2011, 11:08
Location: Australia

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Paul » 11 Aug 2014, 00:25

Huh, that Elliott has been duped, just as we might have expected. Closed-minded Tory, believes any sort of right-wing spin. Scottish too. A complete traitor to his people. Just think of all the work he's done in fruitless research, just to be duped with a mere £44.5 billion figure. Huh, that's probably just the interest - per day.

Elliott - you're dealing with 'things' who can shape-shift into lizards and aliens.

Back in the real world - or at least on Junglebook - the thread has melted down marvellously. One of her previous anti-fracking friends (though I suspect not real-world friends) has called her 'scum' and been totally angered by it all. She rightly told her she had zero respect and manners and also suggested that to know real poverty she should get up and go do some missionary work in the 3rd world. (I was astonished but temporally ecstatic to see this cat fight.)

This was most pertinent regarding the whole socialist outlook and her hypocrisy, but may have been incidental. I don't think her antagonist knows her in the real world. The antagonist may also be a socialist herself, but a low-level one, who still curiously supports the Monarchy and is at least well-mannered and probably 'old school'. There is this type of lefty about and maybe especially in older women. They are of course modern Liberals, in the now default left-liberal sense.

Our protagonist responded instantly and told her antagonist to "F*** Off and get off my wall". She is arrogant and egotistical of course and won't be taken with the idea of criticism at all. At the same time she will justify it with more outrage that someone 'supposedly anti-fracking' is in league with ideas of Monarchy. The ultimate treason in her eyes. She deserves a violent backlash. She's supporting child abusers!

Themes like this WILL be going through her mind and she's no doubt voiced it loud several more dozen times since - in the real world too. She has also mentioned that the Queen owns the land upon which gas-fracking has been proposed ..... and "has done nothing to stop them."

The antagonist was only too willing to exit the scene and so ended their brief friendship.

Really, I do think that if it was any other country (or very many of them) and someone was posting so blatantly and in so demeaning a fashion about the Head of State (and a woman and elderly), there could well be serious trouble ensuing. More foolishness and a total failure to appreciate how lucky she is. Meanwhile, she's busy doing anything she can to close down all those freedoms she has hitherto enjoyed.

You couldn't make it up. Meanwhile, these people are allowed to vote.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Paul » 14 Aug 2014, 21:29

Today I was asked to go and assess some work required at some premises and land. I know the chap who requested I have a look. He's a craftsmen (carpenter) of some skill and very traditional. I don't see him that often and don't know his politics exactly, but I suppose on average value he 'must' be centre left - it's the best one can hope for I suppose.

I tend to think anyone working, especially self-employed, must be to the right - but I've been shocked (astonished) before by finding out to the contrary. Maybe he is though, and was just being diplomatic and polite:

There were several other people there, to which purpose I know not. I suspect they were something to do with design. Arty stuff in one way or another. Nothing wrong with that though - in and of itself.

When I had completed my assessment and we talked the thing through a little, a cup of tea arrived. The talk went to more general matters - how is business, are you busy, etc. Two of the other people joined us for a chat, one male and one female.

The male had long dreadlocks and a ring through his nose! Well, his nostril - but I still couldn't rid myself of the thought of a bull and a lead chain. The female had bright pink hair and some facial ironmongery too, though nothing too shocking. Just a nose ring and several ear-rings. No cow bells though!

The conversation drifted to mention of this other chap who had been earlier in the day looking at some other work required. At some point, conversation with this other chap had resulted in him mentioning ..... immigration!

I could feel the atmosphere change. It hardened, if that's the word for it. Dreadlock Man rolled his eyes and sighed. Pink Hair tut-tutted. Then Dready Man said:

"It pi**es me off. People are so stupid. The fact (?) is, all the immigrants in this country are sound people. We just can't leave them alone. If we left them alone we would all be enriched (I nearly spat out a mouthful of tea). The fact is (fact again), that 99.9% of the problems in this world are caused by White Man."

Did I mention that Dreadlock Man is white? They did look well-heeled enough. They weren't scruffy per se, as in a dirty sense. They were 'artfully' alternative you could say. Very carefully constructed

"Yeah, white pride and especially British Pride - that's the problem", said Pink Hair - who is also English and white.

"F*** British Pride" says Dready Man. "Almost every single thing that's bad in the world and all the bad sh*t that's happened is all the fault of the British Empire. It's all Imperialism".

"Like the Romans" I said. "Maybe we should just blame them, they were over here (Britain) after all". I said this with a smile, as if to make light of how the talk was going. I sense this irritated Dready Man, even maybe angered him.

"No man, we can't blame the Romans. That's ridiculous, it was thousands of years ago." He was adamant. Then he said

"Hmm, but the British Empire has been rampaging about the world a long time though - at least 800 years".

No - I decided to get more serious. "There wasn't a British Empire 800 years ago. In 1214 we didn't even have Magna Carta".

Silence. Gulp.

Making more light of it, I uttered the well-known Monty Python line - "What did the Romans ever do for us?"

"Well yeah, all empires are bad man. It all ends up with oppression" says Dreadlock Man.

"Well the Romans did loads for us is the point", I said (getting irritated myself now) "and I was making a parallel with the British Empire".

"Ha - what has Britain ever done for the world" - which I was almost praying he would say. Yes, he fell right into the trap.

"Er, well, Magna Carta for a start, anniversary next year. Habeus Corpus. Trial by jury. Equality under the law. William Shakespeare. Michael Faraday. Isaac Newton. Isambard Kingdom Brunel. The first ever computer. Florence Nightingale. Elizabeth Fry. Football, Cricket, Rugby, Tennis, Golf. Most of the rock bands you probably like (but he would probably say Reggae just to be awkward). Probably best of all (I said) is the abolition of slavery - William Wilberforce and all that!"

I reeled these examples off with only short pauses so they couldn't interject.

I could tell they weren't convinced and got the feeling the conversation was best terminated. The atmosphere was stilted. It was as if we were in polite company and I had arrived and said something really rude and embarrassing. Of course to their mind I had! And they are of course the most polite, erudite and charming company one could wish for. So intelligent and enlightened.

My acquaintance who is running the site (as far as my role goes) looked a little embarrassed. By me or by them I'm not sure. I looked at my watch and handed back the empty teacup. The communists drifted away. I bid my farewells and all was well. I hope to meet Dreadlock and Pink again some time soon. I shall be even more prepared.

In other related news, I read something recently that mentioned David Cameron had commented on the great act of 1215, possibly in connection to the anniversary next year. The comment was a written one. In it, David Cameron had referred to ..... Magna Carter (sic).

How tragic is that, if true? One hopes he can also misspell Agincourt and Waterloo.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Gavin » 14 Aug 2014, 22:01

Well done Paul, all credit to you. It always strikes me as disgraceful that we are the ones to me made to feel as if we "upset the atmosphere" - simply by countering with the truth - while leftists can spew any slander they like, typically peppered with profanities, and this is considered acceptable. Well done for making a stand and giving them some hard facts. Cynicism goes a step too far with these people, such that they are consumed with envy and (in numbers) they threaten civilisation itself.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Paul » 14 Aug 2014, 22:10

And of course if true, it's more likely that an aide or secretary wrote the piece, than Cameron himself, but the point remains. If not the Prime Minister then an aide to the PM.

Also, it cannot be said that Magna Carta did anyting 'for the world' except so far as to mould the beginnings of the modern English state and be the backdrop to much of that followed, that did improve the lot of the world.

Next time (if there so be), should I mention Winston Churchill? John Lennon might be better.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Trying to understand liberals

Postby Paul » 14 Aug 2014, 22:37

Thanks Gavin. I could have reeled off plenty more of course. We have such a rich vein to tap I'm proud to say.

I was minded of Paul Weston's speech he made on the banks of the Thames on St Georges Day a couple of years ago. It's recorded as a video clip, on YT and on this site I recall. There he gives quite a speech and quite a list of achievements, astonishing for such a small island, which he also points out, although he is even more specific to England, rather than Britain as a whole. England is of course, the one country primarily under attack.

But imagine referring these kind of lefties to that video clip. Write it down for them, as plenty people tend to do now, on scraps of paper, referring to sites or articles on the web (I do it myself). Paul Weston, You Tube, Proud to be English.

No. That title would put them off. How to get them onto the video without first arousing their suspicions?

Well anyway, let's assume they did find the clip and play it throughout. The horror! And they wouldn't properly listen to it all calmly and dispassionately, especially as the clip wore on. They couldn't sit still and would be shrieking and gesticulating wildly, even alone in their own homes. Plenty of expletives spicing the air. From that point I would be identified as 'far right' and all kinds of accusatory names.

This might be too far for me. I might lose the job. I will have to keep it relatively mild. Mischievous more than damning. I do have some latitude because I can't be sacked as such and they do need me.

As for Paul Weston and Liberty GB. They would become another target for the opposition. There would no doubt be flames, shrieks and the gnashing of teeth on Facebook.

A couple of years ago I referred a lefty friend I have (shockingly left he is, but in an immature and harmless manner) to an article by TD on the matter of litter. he's wrote on or two excellent articles on the problem. Of course there will be resultant social commentary in the article, because litter is caused by human beings, but the article is essentially politically neutral. Litter affects and annoys all people surely? It's common ground.

He flat out refused to even look at the article. His eyes narrowed in suspicion and he inquired after the author again. TD. He ascertained some brief background and said (sniffily) "No thanks, I've heard all the rhetoric before". He's got a university degree too and his last job paid around £50,000 per annum. He's currently 'between jobs', living a life of leisure (at his parents' house).

And remember, they all have the vote!
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

PreviousNext

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.