Sidelights on the political divide

December 24, 2012 24 Comments
By

There was a comment on another post:

And in response to Wolfie it is the most ‘educated’ upper class that has allowed that to happen!! They are detached from reality.

As always, there are elements of truth to both sides but a hell of a lot not taken into account as well.

What we have here is a micro-version of the nationwide, nay global dispute. Essentially it is the now-overtaken* argument of the Old Right versus the Old Left – in this case, one versus many, which adds weight to Wolfie’s contention about a neo-liberal world.

This turned into an unintended post.

It’s primarily the central concerns of the participants which define political positions. When the focus is Thatcher, the Royals, the upper classes, the rich as being automatic betes noirs, while the feckless underclass is glossed over and not taken to task, along with the new global socialism, then that is pure Old Left.

When the betes noirs are the welfare scroungers, the socialists, the left liberals, the feminists, crony capitalists, politicians, lawyers etc., then that is the Old Right. A characteristic of the Old Right is that they acknowledge they are. A characteristic of the Old Left is that they deny they are, maintaining that they are independent thinkers. The Old Left far more easily take offence.

I illustrated the Old Left the other day when a Lady of the Left came in and admitted that she refused to even read the counter-argument on the gun control, labelling it Rightwing.

The difference between that and the Right is that the Right will at least read the Left’s “arguments” and debunk them angrily, as well as put their own. Bill Whittle is a perfect example. But at least they have read the Old Left arguments.

The Left won’t even read them as they do not fit the Narrative they’re convinced of. The arguments or debunking by the Right are an irritant which get in the way of Progress, as if Progress is a positive.

The Left is also characterized by emotion, misused words and rhetoric which have a sameness wherever they’re found. So, talk of equality and diversity is pure Leftspeak and it hides a multitude of sins perpetrated under its name.

The Left refuses to even consider these sins for a moment – how can it when they represent the good guys, the compassionate [or so they believe of themselves]? The approach is to ignore these sins completely and counterattack or else to disappear and refuse to engage.

In the past few decades, the political divide has changed and has become more focussed on Statist versus freedom loving/small government*. Thus the EU is Statist, wanting an ever more centralized elite-controlled world with the middle-class eliminated along with its bourgeois values and an underclass of plebs below.

The Libertarian, drawn both sides of the old divide, is divided into either those for personal licence or those for smaller government. Personal licence is a subset of the Old Left which does not accept the authority of the aristocrats or bosses.

Someone on the right does not speak of personal licence to do anything one wants but of classical liberalism.

But the essential thing in this is not the royals or the upper class per se – it is the New Elite of the Elevated Yahoo – the bestialized Barossos, Blairs, Sutherlands, Mandelsons, Clarkes, Osbornes, Cleggs, Pelosis, Napolitanos, Sullivans and their limited bovine minds are exemplified in Ed Balls. These are the new Orcs, in Tolkien terms.

The Old Left doesn’t like this new division because they want the mortgage themselves on Freedom, they’re the good people, they’re the freedom lovers and they want the agenda of the old class war, no matter what. Therefore anyone with money is, by definition, someone to be dispossessed and the proceeds given to bureaucratic fatcats and false charity chiefs, council aldermen etc.

Meanwhile, the PC Narrative specifically discriminates against certain groups – the indigenous, the male and the aging are three [we see the latter in the care home and hospital issue of the moment].

Very, very occasionally, a card-carrying member of the Old Left, steeped in the rhetoric of same, wakes up to herself and realizes that what she’s been promoting all these years is a Lie. Amfortas sent the following and it illustrates this point quite clearly. He explains:

A quite pleasant lady pursues a career aiding and abetting a system that ‘tries to make society safe’.

She is a success in her career. She is paid from the taxpayer’s deep pockets. She had a comfortable life. But all that changed when her system went into the desired action to ‘make her safe’.

It is heartening in its goryness to hear her now stand up and tell of just what devastation that ‘system’, the one she and her feminist friends created, did to her and her family.

I am not gloating. I have a profound sympathy for her and indeed for the intent with which she started out so many years ago, idealistically. But the Road to Hell is paved with such ‘good’ intent.

Fed with agitprop from the day she was born, it is not at all surprising that we see her and so many other women declare themselves to be ‘Feminists’, and even when they do not say it so boldly nevertheless support all the destructive evil that feminists have devised for the unwary.

One comment on that vid was:

So the system set up by feminists to empower women in reality dis-empowers them, doesn’t believe them if it doesn’t fit the stereotype subscribed to, infantilizes them by telling them what is good or them, and finally criminalizes their family members to extort money from them to support the system.

Now I’ve never met that commenter, don’t know where he or she comes from but isn’t it uncanny that I can myself write: “the system set up by feminists to empower women in reality dis-empowers them” on this blog, only to go somewhere else in the world and find the same thing written there?

Would a member of the Old Left consider for a moment that this is uncanny, that there just might be something other than James Higham’s ravings in this?

Like Amfortas, I have deep sympathy for this woman who never had a chance – she was steeped in the Narrative from day one and grew up believing more than six impossible things before breakfast. I hear some of the ladies I am close to and whom I ahve great affection for parroting exactly the same rhetoric. One doesn’t want a moment such as this woman experienced for them, one just hopes that somehow they’ll wake up to the evils perpetrated by feminism.

A further divide these days, increasingly so, is between the Christian and Dawkinite, the rationalist who thinks he has it all at his fingertips and can control his own destiny.

So we get this mish-mash of old divisions, new divisions and the religious divide all mixed in. And almost everyone misses the real enemy of this day [and former days but it's repackaged now and decked out in new livery] – Them. If you want a definition of Them, of evil in its everyday working form, it would be someone like the Club of Rome.

If you look at who made up its members and active participants, it ranged from the Black Nobility and elements of the royal houses down to megacapitalists, which has me talking like the Old Left myself.

What Them are after is:

1. A militarized federalist model with central politburo control under mediocre, conformist minds, e.g. Rumpy Pumpy and a bloated underclass of yahoos with no values other than those handed down by the New Elite.

2. Command and control through everything from CCTV to databanks containing ultimately useless information, controlling the economy, the law, education, policing, the armed forces, medicine and so on – all on a socialized model.

3. Abolition of private property, inheritance, patriotism to the nation state, the family and “religion” as defined by Them.

4. A blighted world.

5. Substitution of the mystery religion in the latter stages.

Now, with a Themist versus humanity political divide, elements of the Old Left and Right can join forces, libertarians too who perceive that there is a global push for tyranny versus the last flickering freedom of the common man at stake here – all of these can finally come together because the final political divide is between the monsters above and humanity below.

24 Responses to Sidelights on the political divide

  1. December 24, 2012 at 10:57 am

    James says: “I illustrated the Old Left the other day when a Lady of the Left came in and admitted that she refused to even read the counter-argument on the gun control, labelling it Rightwing.”

    But James, on the gun control post you yourself said in response to someone offering yourself a link to read: “Biased leftist site, like Huffington Post. Discount any “findings” from there”. You are advising people to adopt a general policy of discounting something without reading it, just as the lady did.

    I suggest that both sides have read the other’s arguments many times in various links and documents and articles, hence they see little point in going yet again to read yet more of the same. Many people on all sides of all arguments read other views widely. They just disagree about them.

    For example, if someone offers me yet another link supposedly supporting the Creationist view that the world is only a few thousand years old, I am not going to waste my time reading it, but it doesn’t mean I have not read these views. There is enough nonsense out there that people could send us to that it would take a whole life just to read it all, on any one subject.

    • December 24, 2012 at 11:17 am

      Quite so. Unless there is an indication that the argument is going to present something new, why waste time?

      • December 25, 2012 at 9:49 am

        So you’d both censor it?

        Interesting.

        My position is a bit different. I’d actually let all points of view be put rather than decide for someone else what can or cannot be presented. And though DQS and LR might not appreciate it, they are two of many and there may well be some for whom it is a new argument. And no, I don’t think is misrepresenting what the worthy gentlemen wrote above here.

        I think it’s a very sticky wicket when we start telling other people what can or cannot be spoken of, what can or cannot be written of, what can or cannot be read.

        I’d prefer the libertarian position on this. Can you find anywhere where I have wanted either of you gents not to put your points of view, no matter how much you repeat them [and DQS repeats his with regularity, as does our Greg]. I have to ask who is being libertarian here.

        • December 25, 2012 at 10:46 am

          So you’d both censor it?

          Not bothering to look at arguments that have been already thrashed out numerous times before is not censorship. This whole comment is a massive strawman that misrepresents what both DQS and I have said. Shame on you.

        • December 25, 2012 at 11:35 am

          What in heaven’s name made you think I would “censor” anything? Incredible how you misread and attribute views to people that they don’t have sometimes. People can write and say what they want anywhere they want, but obviously I personally cannot read every word written everywhere about everything and neither can you. As I have said before, it really does put me off commenting on your pieces when you so often try to read into one’s comments things that they have not said. Merry Christmas though.

          • December 25, 2012 at 11:41 am

            …and echoing Longrider, that comment really is the most incredible misrepresentation James. It really makes me wonder if there is any point in commenting on your own pieces at all. We were clearly talking about what we personally would choose to read in this busy life. How that becomes, in your mind, a suggestion to censor what anyone else writes or posts or says or reads is totally beyond me.

            • December 25, 2012 at 1:04 pm

              That’s no misrepresentation [not deliberate anyway] though by my mentioning misrepresentation I’m obviously sensitive that I don’t do that.

              It’s a time when the suppression of points of view, particularly Christian points of view is running riot and suggesting something not be put up because someone doesn’t like it is censorship.

              Quite so. Unless there is an indication that the argument is going to present something new, why waste time?

              That wasn’t about being free to read or not, that was about it not going up in the first place – why waste time. In the reader’s opinion, as it was saying the same thing he’d had to listen to before [even though this post wasn't, by the way], then it was a waste of time to put it up.

              That is, he’s suggesting it is not put up.

              That is – censorship.

              I begged to disagree with that.

              ………..

              If on the other hand, it was a misunderstanding on my part, then that is still not a misrepresentation, i.e. it was not deliberate, not a wind-up etc. It really did look as if that was what was being done.

              If it wasn’t, then sorry to both you gents.

              • December 25, 2012 at 1:43 pm

                No, it is not censorship. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the right to be heard. And not listening (because you’ve heard it before) is not censorship. To suggest that it is, is not only to misrepresent what I said, it is to twist the word censorship out of all recognition.

                In the reader’s opinion, as it was saying the same thing he’d had to listen to before [even though this post wasn't, by the way], then it was a waste of time to put it up.

                That is, he’s suggesting it is not put up.

                It says nothing of the sort. That is your imagination working overtime. It says precisely what it says; if I’ve heard the arguments before, I don’t bother revisiting them unless there is evidence of something new – it is not an exhortation for anyone else to do anything at all. It is not – and never was – by any stretch of the imagination; censorship.

                It would be really nice if you would refrain from second-guessing what I’ve said and putting words into my mouth, especially given that I use simple, plain, unambiguous English. You have drawn all sorts of conclusions from a simple statement and made it something that it never was.

              • December 25, 2012 at 4:00 pm

                given that I use simple, plain, unambiguous English

                Ah but you didn’t, did you? Otherwise there’d have been no misunderstanding.

              • December 25, 2012 at 4:13 pm

                James, the whole discussion, in language as clear as daylight, was about what people CHOOSE TO READ! To suggest otherwise and bring in the issue of censorship is such a nonsensical misunderstanding of what was being said that it really does leave me completely bemused as to how you could find any discussion of censorship stated or implied anywhere in what either of us said. Longrider was so obviously meaning it would be a waste of his time to read, saying nothing whatever about people’s obvious right to post whatever they wish.

              • December 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm

                Ah but you didn’t, did you? Otherwise there’d have been no misunderstanding.

                Yes, I did. It was as plain as the nose on your face. If you choose to misinterpret, I cannot control that – apart from saying nothing, of course.

                I have to say; I’m absolutely with DQS here – your ability to misinterpret a simple statement and take it completely out of context into meaning something entirely different to that which was obvious, defies belief.

              • December 25, 2012 at 9:54 pm

                No, that’s not so. You, DQS, put it in a form which could have been taken both ways but Longrider, in quite clear English, turned it into that it shouldn’t be put. That was the slide.

                On it’s own, it meant nothing. In combination with your comment, it meant quite clearly, in plain, unambiguous English, that the ideas should not be put.

                To say that the two comments, in combination, meant only about reading is utter bollox, as readers can see for themselves.

                your ability to misinterpret a simple statement and take it completely out of context into meaning something entirely different to that which was obvious, defies belief

                And your inability to admit what you did defies belief as well. Fortunately, it’s there for all to see. Clear, unambiguous, unequivocal. Interesting that you both had to go the ad hominem route and that says more than the arguments themselves.

              • December 25, 2012 at 10:49 pm

                It certainly is there for all to see. Please quote back to me my actual words that suggested censorship of anything, or stop being silly.

                I said:

                “I suggest that both sides have read the other’s arguments many times in various links and documents and articles, hence they see little point in going yet again to read yet more of the same. Many people on all sides of all arguments read other views widely. They just disagree about them.

                For example, if someone offers me yet another link supposedly supporting the Creationist view that the world is only a few thousand years old, I am not going to waste my time reading it, but it doesn’t mean I have not read these views. There is enough nonsense out there that people could send us to that it would take a whole life just to read it all, on any one subject.”

                and then above it of course, I put themain point to you, which you have ignored, namely:

                “James says: “I illustrated the Old Left the other day when a Lady of the Left came in and admitted that she refused to even read the counter-argument on the gun control, labelling it Rightwing.”

                But James, on the gun control post you yourself said in response to someone offering yourself a link to read: “Biased leftist site, like Huffington Post. Discount any “findings” from there”. You are advising people to adopt a general policy of discounting something without reading it, just as the lady did.”

              • December 25, 2012 at 10:54 pm

                and then, in response to my comment about whether or not we should READ things, Longrider said:

                “Quite so. Unless there is an indication that the argument is going to present something new, why waste time?”

                Anyone who cannot see that he means why waste time READING the stuff, since he is responding to my comment, is simply not understanding the language. Why did you invent the idea that Longrider was suggesting it should not be allowed to be written or posted?

              • December 25, 2012 at 10:55 pm

                It certainly is there for all to see. Please quote back to me my actual words that suggested censorship of anything

                That shows you don’t read what is written. Read my last comment more thoroughly in reference to you alone, as distinct from LR alone.

                If something’s already been stated, there’s no need to state it again, as someone stated near the top of this comments thread.

              • December 25, 2012 at 10:59 pm

                Hilarious James. You accuse me of promoting censorship through my words. Please therefore quote where I promote censorship or stop being silly. My words James, show me my words, not what you seem to have imagined is going on in my head or in Longrider’s. I know what went on in your head, but how our words created it I truly cannot imagine.

              • December 25, 2012 at 11:02 pm

                Or of course if you are not accusing me personally of promoting censorship please just say so, and I will butt out and let Longrider explain to you further why he wasn’t either, if he wishes to do so.

              • December 26, 2012 at 1:56 am

                I’ve made a single final statement on these issues to cover both posts – it’s in the other comments thread.

              • December 26, 2012 at 9:22 am

                No, that’s not so. You, DQS, put it in a form which could have been taken both ways but Longrider, in quite clear English, turned it into that it shouldn’t be put. That was the slide.

                I’ve read some fucking arse wibble in my time, but this takes the biscuit. And pointing out that you are talking bollocks is not an ad hom – it is a simple statement of fact. No one has said anything that remotely constitutes censorship. It is your invention and nothing else. And, yes, I am getting seriously pissed off with these accusations, having explained in more detail than should be necessary why you are wrong.

  2. mona
    December 24, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Stop worrying, 2013 is the year it will all start unraveling, of the whole shit pile you omitted Common Purpose and ACPO, as with Pavlov’s dogs those that survived from his flooded torture laboratory recovered from those ringing bells by the trauma of almost drowning as we will now that we know they are attempting to mentally exterminate us.

  3. Greg Tingey
    December 24, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    If you think the “right” doesn’t use emotion,as opposed to reason, you ar enot on this planet …….
    Both sides do this, & it is disgusting.

  4. Voice of Reason
    December 24, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Here in the US, it is the conservatives who completely deny reality, and have no sense of humour at all.

  5. Viscount StAlbans
    December 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    I notice the name Blair in the above, it caused me to think, where is the Chilcott Inquiry buried ? or was it cremated?.

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us for now via either James' or Julia's sites until we set up a new email here or follow us on Twitter

Comments policy

No to press regulation

Please sign the petition - click pic: blogoff

Contributors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Angry Exile
Bucko
Chuckles
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
Sackerson
The Quiet Man
Witterings from Witney

Orphans logo

Feel free to take this for your sidebar.
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux