The impossibility of true debate

One of the constant criticisms by our side of politics is how much consideration is given exploded points of view.

Balance though, I’ve been forced to learn, is a false construct in many areas. For example, someone like us who constantly puts that sexualizing children is one of the sickest by-products of leftism today – something we say on our side of politics – is hardly going to take kindly to someone negating that by constructing and posting an argument that sexualizing children is good. [Hewitt, Harridan].

Oh they wouldn’t put it that way, of course, because Narrative only deals in positive constructs and buzzwords, so that’s called something different, something like “freedom of sex for all” or “showing tolerance” or it’s included under “freedom for all”. That’s how the wormtongues do it.

To give any column space to such things is not just a waste of time but is consciously promoting wrong.

It’s exactly the same with Muslims. As their placards show, they’re not remotely interested in having inter-faith dialogue, except under the rules of taquiyya. They are interested only in encroaching, eating away, taking over. It’s their stated purpose, it is reiterated day after day by the imams.

It is naive in the extreme for us to maintain this model of the Ancient Greek forum where all come to put their point of view according to the rules of debate because one side has not the slightest intention of honouring those rules.

It cuts both ways. On the Tory right, Douglas Carswell found that Cameron had no intention of honouring his promises, none whatever. How could he, in thrall to Brussels as he is?  And just how many in that parliament are “Dolphin-Squarers”, “Second-homers”?

So this model of free debate is a fantasy – far more appropriate is the model of a healthy body attacked by a cancer.

Before applying that model though, the moral buzzwords which the left hijacks and redefines in order to frame the “debate” do, by definition, contain some truths. They have to, otherwise the faithful hoodwinked will reject the packaged-in untruths, the hard ideology underpinning the feelgood causes.  There must be sugarcoating and sugarcoating is, by definition, sweet to the taste.

An example of where the left is correct is on halal meat and cruelty to animals in general.  I’m with them there and though still an omnivore, I can’t stand seeing, metaphorically, little birds with broken wings.  I dare say many on this side of politics would also say they’re not without compassion on these specific matters.

I also hate to see the homeless on the streets but where I differ from the left is that it is precisely leftist policies of all-encompassing, impossibly expensive programmes milking the taxpayer of his last pennies in order to pay fatcat bureaucrats in false charities that are what has exacerbated a problem which has always been in societies but when given the left treatment, aggravate a once-manageable ill and the wound now widens, blows up and festers.

And it has always been so.  Every single programme of this nature, without exception, has bitten the dust after the unprincipled have skimmed off their £300,000 a year, bought their second homes and the ordinary people, especially the poor, are far worse off in real terms than before, as they no longer have the capacity to work – their underbelly is now softened by the handout mentality.

So the model on blogs like this really must not be “free debate” because that’s not how the other side views it.  The other side sees it only as an opportunity to blunt the centrist, sane message, a message such as this:

If a society no longer exists where well over half of the total population is in work and earning enough to cover major expenses, then that society is sick.

The left knows we love the fantasy of free debate and use it as a tool, e.g. the Beeb.  They’ll stack audiences with trolls and those sympathetic to wrong masquerading as right and will try to put in falsehoods, e.g. on the now mythical women’s pay gap, twisting the reality of what “pay” actually encompasses.

It will ignore that it was men who gave women these rights in the first place, recognizing that it was not fair to ignore the principle of equal pay for equal work.  The devil’s in the words “equal work” though.

And in its simplicity, it hides a great untruth – that of the “quota” culture of parachutism plus one of the most iniquitous – “positive discrimination”.

Not positive in the least, in this non-productive society, this zero sum game or less of diminishing opportunity.  It is no more nor less than a turning on its head of the natural order.

Far from crying out for over-equal rights for women, something already achieved BEFORE society lurched to the left matriarchy we have today, which some euphemize as “the nanny state” – far from that, society should be tackling the very great disease of idle men, stay-at-homes who become useless drones in the new society.

There’s a very great need for this society to bring back manufacturing and the jobs which men traditionally did – the physical, hard work which would then free up the services sector for women to dominate and then everyone’s happy.

There’s a very great need for the zero sum or less game nexus to be broken and expansion of industry take place.  The majority of males can then take their places in those factories, where they should be, rather than lying on couches in front of tele sets during the day.

There have been so many posts in the 12,000 or so on my blog in its various forms which go into the global left, the Frankfurt School, the 60s and so on and how all is based on false constructs, even admitted from the lips and pens of the Adornos and Benjamins themselves.

And a very great truth arises from this – where there is a cause, there are fanatics and where there are fanatics, when they get clever, they disguise their faux constructs in sugarcoated rhetoric which takes twenty posts just to deconstruct and by then the reader is lost.

The Narrative is now so deeply embedded in the culture of western nations that it’s no longer open ideology – it’s become what half of society simply believe. And yet it is continually shown, in macro and micro form on blogs such as this or Breitbart and many other sites just how wrong the Narrative is, this PCism.

The real killer though is the way the other side “debates”.  There are, as mentioned above, some tidbits of truth among the PC dross and these do need addressing, something many of us don’t address to the extent we should.

Yet all that is swamped by the tidal wave of false dross in which the left couches real truths, real issues.  And their behaviour, to those of us schooled in the ancient rules of debate in academia – to us, the very notion of “groupthink”, “NLP”, strawmen, false buzzwords hijacked and redefined is anathema.

How does one deal with people who have no intention whatever of “debating” but only in putting faux information in order to confound and confuse?

How does one deal with someone who takes an idea or ideas and instead of debating them, attacking false ideas and attacking groups who support them, sooner or later turns personal.

A perfect example, on my site, was a feminist who came in over the faux 77% paygap in the States.  She quoted massaged govt stats – by the way, does anyone accept govt. stats at face value [?] – then oversimplified into this 77%.

I responded with two articles on the issue, showing that pay includes so many more aspects than this campaign is dealing with – in fact they are ignoring those points.

Then she replied and I put her argument on site, unadulterated, not edited in the least.  It appeared on site just as she had stated it.  My crime was to attack the argument.

Suddenly, today, I’m told, “James, you are not holding up your end of the bargain.”  Er, excuse me, pardon?  This is one of the core tactics of the left – to go straight for the person saying the thing – outrageously falsely too – not attacking the idea to the exclusion of all other matters.

Thus one attacks James Delingpole, not what he’s saying on a particular issue.  One attacks him s a person.

And that kills debate stone dead.  Not only that when caught out in ideological illogic, e.g. this Arquette woman in the States whose feminist message was attacked by other parts of the left the other day, the left suddenly disiwns her and thus I read about her as someone who “pretends to be liberal”.

She was very much of the liberal hegemony before that, now she’s disowned.  LOL.

A similar thing happened with Blair.  The darling of the left, suddenly he became anathema and a commenter at my site called him “rightwing”.  ROTFL.   Blair is an averred Fabian, a stated destroyer of societies, one of the One World lot.  In no way, shape or form is a Statist like that “rightwing”, thank you very much.  You can keep your darling for yourself.

As it turns out, the description generally accepted today is “champagne socialist”.  Even the left can accept this as a faux socialist, whereas the “true” left are good socialists.

But coming back to this disavowal of the leftist who has shown the impossibility of their ideology, how does the left approach such cognitive dissonance?

By the fork-tongued approach of:

1.  Disavowal, excommunication;

2.  Blaming some other person or factor for the failure of the policy.

This latter is precisely what Philby and Burgess were trying to do to their dying day – desperately trying to use the Narrative’s failure-explanatory division to redirect blame to abso-bloody-lutely anyone at all but themselves.

Not the slightest recognition that the Narrative is, in itself, fundamentally flawed.

one of the left's worstThus we get a situation where there is zero possibility of communication between them and us, simply because they won’t even agree to use Russell’s formal logic – and Russell was one of their darlings.

Like ISIS, they are not here to argue, to enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, they are here to win hearts and minds.  Look squarely at the feminazis and the Imams – precisely the same tactics in the early stages.  There’s one in the pic to the left here.

The only place they differ is that the feminazi tries to stack governments and thus force people to do their loopy will, whereas the imams want heads chopped off in their orgies of sickening violence brought on by the very nature of Islam.

Either way, the tactics in both cases preclude any debate with us and true to form, they blame that entirely on us and say we’re running away from debate.  The Nazarean wept.

There was a time when most of us basically agreed on most things – house, car, job, fun, holidays, family.  That time was somewhere between WW2 and now.  After that, we steadily slid left and now have the polarized society we have today, in which those of us still with those old values of Britain, that subconscious sense of heritage, find ourselves marginalized.  WTF has happened?

And thus the gauntlet has been thrown down and we have been drawn into, manipulated into, war – even on a blog like this.  Naturally, bloggers such as myself will be blamed for polarization, whereas that polarization was already well in place before such as I even appeared on the scene.

Where it now goes? No idea.

1 comment for “The impossibility of true debate

  1. Flyinthesky
    February 28, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    I can only assume with the paucity of comment there is little to disagree with here. You have expressed opinions that I would do and I can relate to, except you can do it 1000% better, horses for courses.
    Where it now goes, the whole edifice collapses under the weight of it’s own contradictions or civil war ensues. I fear that the resolution will be far beyond my lifespan. It’s ongoing and insidious and almost nobody recognises it.
    The sad thing is the longer it prevails the more normalised it becomes and as time goes by the less the inclination becomes to address it.
    Everything has to be addressed within the constraints of prevailing opinion and legislation, what, seemingly, no one is prepared to do is question the actual framework.

Comments are closed.