Were we without conscience …

Were we without conscience, we could have laid odds this was going to happen big time [H/T Wiggia]:

Appeasement, Australian style – Newsdotcomau

We’ve probably had enough of it now, waiting [for Godot] for the “leaders” to start processing the Muslim youth in the country but fat chance when their reactionary forces produce this:

THE attacks in Paris are so singularly vile, so unprecedentedly deranged, it would be impossible to confuse the murderers behind them with any other group.

But that is what will happen in Australia. An outspoken minority will attempt to link some of our citizens with the insanity of the IS conspiracy, the terrorists most likely to have ordered and carried out the killings.

There could be a backlash, largely driven by confusion and anxiety, against the 480,000 Australians of the Muslim faith, as if their religion was enough evidence to put them under the IS banner. As if their worship meant they also supported the IS commitment to butchery.

And here is a commenter on the Maher clip:

2014 was the year my eyes were opened to the fact that the Western left has a severe and hopeless lack of awareness. It was also the year I officially moved away from liberalism and into the middle. A large part of it was due to the refusal of Western liberals to call out Islam…but they would slobber all over themselves over a Christian saying he did not agree with gay marriage.

The complication is that the average do-gooder left-liberal is nothing like the vicious Alinsky-like PTB of Demos, Tavistock, Chatham House, Common Purpose et al.  And so the left, if wishing to attack the right, goes straight for some GOP luminary or other, for George Osborne or Theresa May, none of whom are conservative – they’re one nation advocates.  The right goes for Clinton, Blair, Cameron et al. Legitimately of course.

But I’m echoing the notion that it is indeed the common, garden variety left-liberal who is a major problem in the society because he or she facilitates, abets or fails to act on wrong. And the reason is because he or she, to a greater or lesser extent, is a:

do gooder

It’s well put. A well-meaning [hence they cannot see anything wrong with wanting to do good in the least] but unrealistic [and no one of a certain age thinks he’s wrong in his thinking] or interfering [he simply cannot see that imposing something on us for our own good is 1. patronising, 2. tramples all over people’s right to choose] philanthropist or reformer.

Do-gooding removes the right to self-determination for each person.

The core issues with the do-gooder include that they want blanket solutions imposed, enforced by government.

That is, they are, by definition, in reality, not in their minds, in collusion with government.

Anyone looking at OWS, civil rights protests and the like would see those as anti-government, anti-state but that’s not so in real terms, in terms of the fallout. The moment you wish something blanket banned, you are, in effect, asking for government to take control of that matter.

That is – to take over control.

And the left are quite happy to use public moneys, from the benefits they’re on and which they wish to see extended to any illegal who can sneak into the country, to allocation by government for some new bureaucracy to administer some new ideological idea.

The left-liberal has no genuine concept of the real generation of sustainable money, nor how easy it is to rack up debt … until the payday loan company becomes involved with them personally.

An extension of this is self-entitlement, the belief that society owes them a living wage, with little or no input from themselves.  That is, without them earning that money through some sort of philanthropic, civic endeavour or through tax.

In other words, the left-liberal subscribes to de facto unsustainablilty, even though they have no concept that that’s what they’re on about.  The buzzword from the UN is “sustainability” – greenism, windfarms, carbon taxes, recycling – this is where the left-liberal eyes are focused.  Warble gloaming.

The notion that the vast expense incurred, the fatcats employed on obscene salaries, the debt it plunges society into – that they caused this through their support for grandiose yet very dodgy schemes of social justice – they can never accept this.

In other words, a key characteristic of the left-liberal is the utter failure to accept that the failure of such schemes is at least partly down to them. It always has to be down to other factors, it can never be down to their own erroneous ideas they allowed government to impose on society.

The concept of cognitive dissonance fits the left-liberal to a T.  The do-gooder who has cost the nation big time and is now bewildered as to why it went pearshaped – could never be down to their belief being erroneous, could it?

And this lack of concern for the money it costs spills over into other areas too. The idea that some man or woman who worked his/her backside off to earn, save and invest, such that he/she ends up with a tidy sum due to judicious life choices – that person is one of the “wealthy”, therefore fair game for ripping off in obscene taxes and for dispossessing to fund the grandiose schemes which, of course, are unsustainable and uneconomical in themselves.

Brown’s raiding of the pension funds is a perfect example of complete lack of concern for what people have built up and/or are now entitled to.

Think about that one moment. I am here with £2000 in the bank, everything paid off, you have just the money in your pocket and debt.  Your eyes look about and see me “with money”. Therefore I’m a fair target in your eyes.  I must have acquired it on the back of workers, I never built that business.

The government’s job is to seize my money and distribute it your way but of course you’ll claim it is for all society to receive. At no time is there any concept of getting off your backside and working for your money, making better choices.

I am poor at this moment myself but that is down to poor choices, plus the decision to make my home on the water, bit by bit as money trickles in.

There’s no moaning from me about my lot, no bellyaching about the wealthy having a silver spoon, a top education. There’s a lot of moaning from me about Them and the use of credit to make things like housing completely unaffordable, let alone good food.

The right recognize changing conditions in society and make provision for them. The left demand society bail them out.

But of course, it’s not all or nothing. A man can run a business, a family firm and still have ideas of social equality for women and a benign attitude towards minorities.  I have a benign attitude towards the Sri Lankans who run the shop around the corner. I do not towards purveyors of Islam.  Nor to women radicals still bellyaching after they’ve long had all they could legitimately want at the expense of men.

The difference between left and right – not an artificial distinction but a very real mindset – is in the attitude towards life.  Thus, looking at the Israelis and Palestinians, most on the right would admire the Israelis for their industry, the way they maintain a narrow strip of land where they do, deep in enemy territory and they’d have scant respect for a people who just moan and fire rockets into other people’s territory.

It’s just a way of thinking and the right do differ on many issues themselves but were you to present an issue to a group of people now, it’s almost guaranteed the right would largely fall on one side of it and the left on the other.

However, a good example of these divisions within the right  is the man who built a castle on his own property, hidden by foliage.

Some of the right waxed lyrical about compliance and how rulz-is-rulz, how we have laws and everyone must obey them, no exceptions. Others of the right, including me, admired his entrepreneurial spirit, the way he created a dream from nothing using his own hands.

Clarkson is a case in point. Having gone back over it in the last few days, hell, I’d be furious too if I’d done a day’s shooting and the toerag whose job it was to provide sustenance had failed in his job, for a beefy crew to come back to find nothing available.  I’d say what followed he had coming. My mate said it’s never acceptable to punch anyone, for any reason.  Yeah yeah.

Then there are those on the right – and you saw it with the esteemed and peerless Julia, she “doesn’t do” conspiracy theories, even though it’s as clear as the nose on your face what the western leaders have been playing at with Syria and Putin called their bluff on it, plus me going on about Them and giving chapter and verse who and how they do it, only for part of the right to say nope, can’t be so, move along, nothing to see here. I call these the colonel blimps, which is not a reference to their girth.  It’s a reference to blinkers.

So yes, there are differences on the right, but give us a social issue and we’ll more often than not find ourselves agreeing.

Should there be no social policy?  Should there be zero assistance from public moneys for anyone?

Well that’s never been so in our recent society – obviously there are genuine cases but what is genuine?  The way ATOS took up Cameron’s cudgel and forced the truly disabled into work they couldn’t do is despicable, particularly as it was just knee-jerk grandstanding from Cameron, to keep his rank and file happy.

Yet there certainly were malingerers along the way, no question and they needed to be removed from benefits. It’s not all cut and dried, is it? It’s a case-by-case scenario.

But the right’s core differences to the left still stand out. The left’s idea that anyone is eligible until proved otherwise contrasts with the right’s “no one is entitled unless he can prove it.”

And the left’s concept of wealth being a big public pot to spend on schemes is anathema to the right who see money as either made legitimately or made illegitimately. Both exist but the problem is deciding which is which.

The right do not auto-include everyone with money under the heading illegitimate, they say that that person could have made that money through astute choices.On the other hand, he might not have.

And taxes – why should there be different tax rates?  Why?  if it’s a percentage, a flat rate, then the rich still pay whopping tax, the poor far less. That’s more than fair.  This c*** that the “rich can afford a higher rate” is rubbish. Why should they?  If they pay their flat rate percentage on what they acquire, same as anyone else, then so what?

Obviously tax avoidance is an issue. To me, avoidance is a legitimate tactic – that’s what accountants are for. Evasion is another matter and he who does not pay what he should is in another bracket.  If Britain has ruinous tax which strangles the life out of small businesses and some island has good rates, then why would I not run my business from the island?

This has been a long post but there was much ground to cover. There really is a thing called left and a thing called right and it’s in the attitude towards any given issue.  Not everyone is melodramatically all one or the other. There are divides within the right too, as well as the splinter groups in the left.

There are three prevailing ideologies in society and one trying to become one. Them’s ideology is to enslave Man and keep him down.  In this he is aided by the left’s PC ideology, cynically co-opted by Them to further its agenda.

Then there is the ideology of the right which says anyone should find himself in a society where if he wishes to chance his arm, he can, free of Them. A pauper can become president, though that’s a fiction.

And of course, then there is the alien ideology trying to take over our land. Just how far Them is in collusion with the Muslims is in other posts.

One more thing before we go. You might feel I am obsessed, a real hater, to tear into the left so hard in the last few days.  Let me present a link from Chuckles which vigorously underscores why I do this at OoL.

MillionStudentMarch: Marxist 1%’er Keely Mullen lied to Neil Cavuto

“Million Student March” Organizer (and Marxist) Keely Mullen told Neil Cavuto at Fox Business News Thursday that she comes from an “incredibly working class family” who are “already on numerous forms of government assistance and is basically scraping by in order to get me through college…”

But Mullen’s dad purchased a home for “little more than $1 million” in 2005 and Keely also attended the pricey Francis W. Parker High School.

Adding to the contradictions, Mullen previously described her family as “a white, upper middle class family.”

Mullen, along with her co-organizer Elan Axelbank, is a member of the “Socialist Alternative,” a Trotskyist group. While Keely Mullen and/or Elan Axelbank was quoted at the Washington Post, the Soros-funded ThinkProgress, Teen Vogue, Cosmopolitan, among many others, the “journalists” in the mainstream media all forgot to mention that the organizers are Marxists.

As an aside, the “Socialist Alternative” was recently successful in re-electing Kshama Sawant to the Seattle City Council.

So there is another element here now about the left, particularly the new young left – it is intrinsically dishonest. When the facts don’t fit the narrative, change the facts.

And some of us do not like this intrinsic dishonesty.

1 comment for “Were we without conscience …

  1. Voice of Reason
    November 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    What a surprise. A self-proclaimed British Marxist comes from a wealthy family. It was that way when I was in University in the 1970’s, and also in the 1920’s, if the ‘Peter Wimsey’ stories had any real history in them.

Comments are closed.