Straighten up and fly right

Unpopularity Warning:  You might just like to skip this post because it lams into a particular mindset in our society.  Not all readers will appreciate this.  Just sayin’ like.

There are three political tendencies these days – actually, there always were but they’re more identifiable now – and they are Statism, leftism and conservatism.

Naturally, there is cross-over, particularly among leftists who’ve woken up [grown up?] and these include Robin of Berkeley and me. Anyone who knows of Berkeley knows it to be a hotbed of leftist activisim in the U.S.

She writes:

One of the reasons I drifted so far left was because of a constant sense of outrage. Of course, out here in Berkeley, I was in good company, surrounded by the multitudes up in arms most hours of the day.

However, once I snapped out of my leftist trance, I realized something startling: I was outraged about all of the wrong things. In fact, leftist outrage is derived not from our Higher Selves, but from another place entirely: the lowly sel[ves].

This explains why the left can be so apoplectic one minute, and then strangely silent the next. The left’s outrage is not completely real; it is manufactured; contrived. The faux outrage is as fabricated as those feel-good slogans about Hope and Change.

The left’s legendary compassion is politically expedient, though elaborately disguised. Watch sparks fly in the battle for gay marriage. Wisconsin is exploding because unionized teachers want collective bargaining. The left’s outrage is self-righteous because it is laser focused on the self.

Not only is the left’s outrage ego-based, but it is rooted in greed. Take the left’s centerpiece issue, social and economic justice. What do those flowery phrases actually mean, anyway? Aren’t they just doublespeak for envy, coveting one’s neighbor, and a gimme-gimme mentality?

When an injustice serves progressive ideology, we see the outrage in full-color display. However, at other times, the silence is deafening — or there is disingenuous posturing.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the deafening silence from white women feminists [there are men too afflicted with this disease] about Muslim women. White feminists aren’t interested in anyone else’s rights, except in generalized, throwaway lines.  What they’re really interested in is themselves, as Robin notes. The reason she and I can see it so clearly is that we were of the left – we are now traitors to the cause. We are the whistleblowers.

Perfect example was Caroline Flint [as in heart of].  It was all outrage as she and a clutch of hens secreted themselves in a room and plotted Gordon Brown’s downfall.  And what was the universal cause they were up in arms about?  “Women” not being given jobs in high office.  “Women” translates as them … themselves.  Not anyone else.

Interesting how a woman on the other side of the pond and I can feel the same way about things and use the same language and not only that, we can go to any blog, e.g. American Thinker, Autonomous Mind, Raedwald, whoever and read the same thing we’ve been dismayed about. There really does have to be something in it, does there not?

We have our own outrage, don’t we? For example, Vincent Cooke, the family man who stabbed to death a hood who tried to muscle into his home and has been promptly arrested for defending his family. The left is deathly silent on it. It’s us who are outraged because it strikes right at our hearts – our families are those we defend, it’s our job and our desire.

The left is so selectively blind. Whilst:

Matt Damon didn’t mince words regarding Obama during a March chat with low-rated CNN talker Piers Morgan: “I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said it the other day and I thought it was a great line: ‘I no longer hope for audacity,’” the Bourne Identity star told the host, even the Sundance Kid is having reservations about Obama. Robert Redford took to the hallowed cyber-pages of The Huffington Post to share his disappointment in the president.

“One reason I supported President Obama is because he said we must protect clean air, water and lands. But what good is it to say the right thing unless you act on it?” Redford writes. “Like so many others, I’m beginning to wonder just where the man stands,” he laments.

These are the exceptions – people who have woken up or are waking up to the empty rhetoric of the Statists and the left. Many others are still full-on deniers:

Plenty of celebrities are still speaking of the president as if the last two-plus years never happened. Singer Gloria Estefan refuses to be bothered by such insignificant issues as credit downgrades, raging unemployment, or choruses of “who can I blame for my failures next?”

The Latina singer held a fundraiser for Obama last year in her Miami home. This month, she couldn‘t find the energy to blame him for the lack of progress on her key issue — immigration reform.

“I wish that the president had a lot more power than he does, but he doesn’t. This has to be something that Congress, the Senate, and the American people decide, everybody together,” she said, adding she predicts he‘ll be reelected in 2012. “I think that he’s doing a good job.”

Now that is jawdropping selective blindness. Where is the famous leftist compassion for the millions of Americans suffering and the millions over here also suffering the squeeze of the State on their capacity just to make ends meet? Over here, gas is set to go up 16-22% over winter, milk is going up 7% in the next month and the money grabs are awesome in their gall. And into this, faux conservative Cameron and Osborne say that we have to be the ones to suffer for the greed of the banks and the decisions of their kind.

Cuts to essential services, huge increases in costs but never cuts to the whole bureaucratic PC madness costing the country billions.

Cable wants the money from the wealthy, whether or not that money was earned or not. His greedy little eyes are all for taking it and frittering it away on social projects which line the pockets of female parachutees who then have to be paid off, at enormous expense, when they b*gg** everything up – Hewlett-Packard have just gone and done it for a third time!  Just look at the person they appointed.

There’s a word for all this selective blindness – it’s called hypocrisy. There’s a word for setting your eyes on someone else’s money – greed. There’s a word for the politics of envy whereby you take away that which belongs to someone else – theft.

And while that’s going on, what does the left do when they finally realize that their unsustainable, utopian ideals have ruined the nation? They pretend it never happened, like Gloria Estefan. They retreat into blogging about flowers and gardens and music, they hum to themselves that all is well except for what the bankers, capitalists and fascists have done, they abhor being called leftist and they ask, hands outstretched, “Why can’t we all just get along?  Why can’t we all come together and do it my way?”

Just as Gloria Estefan asked.

I can’t find the words for this mentality, this mindset. Someone at my own place came in with a quick comment: “It’s not just the left who lie, James.” Well, at least she made at least some concession in that.

Penultimate words will be Robin of Berkeley’s:

As an older person, I remember the good old days (which get better and better the older I get). You didn’t demand your rights with your parents or your teachers or anyone else. If you did, you’d get either a slap across the face or a stern lecture about not acting so uppity.

Back then, you weren’t entitled to anything unless you earned it. And we’re not just talking money and possessions here, but something more important: respect. No one would have or should have respected you simply because you were born upon this earth. But if you acted in a respectable fashion, that is, accountable for your actions and kind to others, then respect would inevitably follow.

But today…what a different picture. Of course, my generation, the Baby Boomers, are responsible for producing all of these entitled folks, because the young ‘uns were taught that the world owed them something for nothing.

Through 60s music and leftist schools, rights and demands were emphasized over traits that are so much more important. And meanwhile, many old folks haven’t moved on developmentally, still remaining frozen in time, circa 1964, making their own demands.

Of course, most people from the left reading this won’t have the foggiest notion of what I’m talking about. Isn’t demanding rights and making money what this life is all about? Sadly, in this shallow, secular world, people have been stripped of the knowledge of what to actually do with this one precious life.

Seems that if a few more leftists finally woke up out of their entitled slumber, as Robin did, as I did, we might be on the road to getting this society back on track.

[H/T Chuckles]

20 comments for “Straighten up and fly right

  1. john in cheshire
    September 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Are you saying that I shouldn’t fantasise about exterminating all socialists because they are capable of being redeemed? But why shouldn’t they also be punished for what they have done to the rest of us? It’s too easy just to accept they have seen the light and then continue as though nothing they have done is important.

    • james Higham
      September 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm


  2. nemesis
    September 25, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Curious to know James, how you made the paradigm shift from left to right or for that matter how anyone does. Is it just a shot of reality? I imagine it is very difficult to start questioning your own belief system, the one you’ve lived your life by and to admit it was in error.

    • September 25, 2011 at 6:54 pm

      There were a few incidents. One was a NUS conference where the wastage of paper was extraordinary. I took the leaders to task and was slapped down. They continued to churn out memos, statements etc., most ending up in the bin. Another was student activists who ended up in Daddy’s firm.

      It was a slow process and I wasn’t even into politics, except for the save the forests type. At one time, I was living with a family whose father chaired a multinational in metals and my car outside was daubed with Labour stickers. Neighbours called the police. I was exactly the type who was not exactly underprivileged [though of humble beginnings] and it was an affectation.

      Slowly I realized what guff I’d been party to and that voting Labour was enabling a destructive force. Trouble was, much later I realized that voting the other way was too. Only in this last year have I realized that they’re all as bad as each other, although I’ve known about the oligarchy for some years.

      A short way of saying all that was that, with the years, perhaps I grew up [at least to the point I am now].

      • September 26, 2011 at 5:39 am

        Churchill’s famous quote comes to mind.

  3. alex
    September 25, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Strange post.

    1. There are plenty of feminists who have written about the plight of Muslim women- I remember campus campaigns by feminists about genital mutilation in Sudan long before it became popular to talk about Muslim women. OK some feminists focus on other issues- but then I haven’t noticed that you focus much on the killings in the Congo- this doesn’t make you a hypocrit when you say you dislike murder in Britain, its just you consider your effort better spent in particular places.

    2. Secondly- all policies at teh moment have horrible consequences- there is no nice way out of this crisis. Its just true that most people are poorer than they thought they were. Prices of things like food and gas and oil are going to go up becuase the consumption of the Chinese and the Indians is rising. So when you say

    Where is the famous leftist compassion for the millions of Americans suffering and the millions over here also suffering the squeeze of the State on their capacity just to make ends meet? Over here, gas is set to go up 16-22% over winter, milk is going up 7% in the next month and the money grabs are awesome in their gall. And into this, faux conservative Cameron and Osborne say that we have to be the ones to suffer for the greed of the banks and the decisions of their kind.

    I’m trying to work out what point you really want to make- do you want market intervention to keep those prices lower? Do you want to stop the accumlation of capital into private banks? That sounds a fairly leftist agenda.

    Also don’t you acknowledge that some policies may be painful- when the right cuts government expenditure for example, people become unemployed and some companies that made money through supplying the state with pens or with linen go under. Most rightwingers aren’t being hypocritical when they say that they acknowledge and feel sad about that pain but think its better to have that pain and make the world better afterwards than adopt another course. Leftwingers likewise acknowledge that some of their policies are painful- but they would argue in the longterm the policies make more sense than rightwing ones.

    I’m not saying that there aren’t legitimate critiques of the left- or that many on the left aren’t hypocrits. But I’m struggling to see where in this article there is any argument which doesn’t apply equally to anyone who has a political viewpoint and furthermore as that’s true, why any of this criticism actually sticks.

    • September 25, 2011 at 7:03 pm

      when the right cuts government expenditure for example, people become unemployed

      Hope you’re not referring to the faux Tories or to Bush and his mates? They’re as conservative as a giant carving of Moloch at Bohemian Grove.

      Leftwingers likewise acknowledge that some of their policies are painful- but they would argue in the longterm the policies make more sense than rightwing ones.

      Yes but it’s based on unsustainable ideology which has never produced anything but destructive results wherever it’s been tried. Countless pundits have noted it. I mean, just look at our situation now. Conservative policies of free enterprise, small government etc. have produced employment, low inflation and a general sense of well-being in the community

      Trouble is, those up top masquerading as conservative are actually global socialist.

      • Thornavis.
        September 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm

        I take your point but the problem with it is that if everyone on the right who fails to roll back the tide of statism is to be categorised as socialist then your argument veers towards being un-falsifiable. It’s not so different from those on the left ( Matt Damon and Robert Redford included perhaps ? ) who denounce every failure by left wingers with power as a betrayal of the cause or describe any economic policy they don’t like as neo-liberal.

        • September 26, 2011 at 2:52 pm

          The very word socialist is fraught because the left takes it to mean something entirely different to the right. Even the left is different things.

          The first fundamental is that everyone wishes to have the high moral ground. Therefore, reading leftist diatribes on what we call free enterprise, common sense, letting people live their own way is characterized by them as fascist and uncaring, which it very much is not.

          When we refer to socialism ruining communities through unsustainable policies, from PCism through to actual statism, through high taxation, blown out deficits and welfare state burden, the left does not recognize this as any of their doing. It has to be the last right wing government and faux socialists, e.g. blair, according to them.

          There’s never any acknowledgement of fault – none whatever. The people who voted in Obama – you show them the trillions of debt and the disintegrating society and they say that’s his fault – they personalize it. They don’t see any ideological thing in there.

          It’s like an alcoholic – unless he admits his problem in the first place, there’s no curing it. The centre right, in the sense of believers in small government, hard work, making one’s own way, full employment, making one’s own security, teaching history in schools, being well brought up at home, etc. looks at the virulent JPMs and GSs, the Exxons and other rapists of the planet and can’t accept they’re a byproduct of free enterprise.

          So the left-liberal and centre-right are at one on these people and they have a history. I call them Them and they are basically global oligarchist or socialist – they are the elite and we serve to enrich them.

          The average leftist is not a bad person and firmly believes he’s the good guy – he’s for fairness, saving nature, against oppression and so on. He has to be the good guy, right? But he fails to see that his fellow running mates, the Obamas et al, are anything but altruistic and by voting socialist, the average leftist is voting for statism and loss of freedom, by definition.

          So this leftist will vote in Pelosi and Harman and read Toynbee and not realize what exactly he’s doing, what he’s enabling. He says that we are enabling the planet rapers like Exxon but we are doing nothing of the kind – we are at a different corner of the triangle to that.

          • nemesis
            September 26, 2011 at 11:54 pm

            “The average leftist is not a bad person ”

            According to a poster on Samizdata, the way to tell wether a leftie is not a bad person is to ask them to explain ‘Fabians Window’. If they are shocked – they are not bad, if they make excuses or just say it is meant to be ironic then otherwise.

            My ignorance of this caused me to have to look it up.

  4. LJH
    September 25, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    I think part of the problem is the amount of selfconscious crafting of a caring persona that happens in early adulthood/late adolescence when, in order to impress people one looks up to as being good, the individual adopts the language and postures of the left (fairness, equality, justice) without actually understanding what one has signed up to. When the full implications of the state’s interferences manifest in unintended consequences (loss of initiative, mounting taxes, proliferating bureaucracy) it is hard to step out as so many within one’s social group persist in the politics and economics of wishful thinking and the narrowed polite discourse of PC. To honestly state the transformation within, from leftie to libertarian or cynic, has become to place oneself beyond the social pale. Given the consensus of politicians, academics and the MSM, dissent has become a form of exile. Thank you blogosphere where selfcensorship is in abeyance for the moment.

    • james Higham
      September 25, 2011 at 10:13 pm

      Nicely put and thanks.

  5. September 25, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    I find this statement extremely odd, especially on a site about “liberty”- and expected some kind of qualification that didn’t appear.

    “There are three political tendencies these days – actually, there always were but they’re more identifiable now – and they are Statism, leftism and conservatism.”

    That’s a really odd political division. Shouldn’t it be (in American terms) Statist left (“liberal”), Statist Right (“conservatism”) and Libertarianism? I don’t see who these non-left, non-conservative statists are, nor why as a consequence you’ve divided the world into three kinds of statists with no room for any anti-statists (various flavours of libertarianism).

    • September 26, 2011 at 8:31 am

      That’s fair comment about the lack of further explanation.

      When I was thinking Statists, I was thinking of global socialists today but of course, there are also Westminster Statists who want all power in their hands, even though it is in the EU’s hands. By leftist, I meant the fuzzy-headed, do-gooder, PCist left-liberal who wouldn’t harm a fly but actually does by his voting pattern, as distinct from the predatory Statists.

      Conservatism is, in my eyes, what most of us running these blogs subscribe to. They want the rule of law, with personal freedom, self-determination and a small state. They want common sense in dealings – read Julia’s posts to get an idea of the idiocy which could be avoided with a bit of common sense.

      It doesn’t mean aristocratic – that’s more Statist again. It’s the society we supposedly enjoyed before the socialists got to it, a time when there were jobs around, when people respected one another, when there was a bit of decency going. It means classic liberalism.

      You mention liberty and this site, Ian. Well it’s been covered before – there are two types, are there not? The puerile “no one tells me what to do and I do anything I want, regardless” and the more mature “if I respect other people’s liberty, then they’ll respect mine” type libertarianism.

      I’m obviously for the latter, which puts me pretty well centre-right/libertarian lite/classic liberal. I believe that’s the largest single grouping in the society, although the left-liberal mentioned above is reaching frightening proportions.

  6. September 26, 2011 at 5:38 am

    “Anyone who knows of Berkeley knows it to be a hotbed of leftist activisim in the U.S.”

    Ahhh, Berzerkley… :mrgreen:

  7. September 26, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Left-wing outrage is all about self-esteem. Lefties need to feel that they are good people – the best people, even. Something happened in their childhoods.

  8. Lord T
    September 26, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    It stems from childhood where you get given everything and even working for it is generally token. Easy come easy go, you don’t mind sharing. You are a socialist.

    Then you start work and you get pointed to the fat cats and how much they have and you think, life isn’t fair. You are a socialist.

    Then you get up there after a lot of fighting and hard work where others do not and you get paid a bit more and then they come along and take it from you by force to give to those that didn’t work. A few years ago you were a tory but as these are now socialist scum as well you are now a Libertarian.

    The cycle of life. Been around since 60M BC

Comments are closed.