Of Trudeau and labels

There is currently a debate on the Canadian Trudeaus, old and young, and it has waxed fiercely. It is one of the few cases of openly left and right clashing without deleting or marginalizing one another.

One thing I noticed, observing it, is that so many who take up leftist positions deny that they are left, whereas a rightist is usually taken up with denying he is “far” right, i.e. slightly to the right of Mao and Pol Pot in leftist eyes, also that he is neither “racist” nor “misogynist” in the least.

I took the position that Trudeau The Old was a wrecker of Canada, one of the worst PMs they’d ever had and that Canadians had forgotten their history in electing this wrecker, The Son.

Well, you should have seen it and yes, guess what – I was labelled a “fascist”. LOL. Oh how those who eschew labels to deny us the right to label positions themselves quickly adopt labels when convenient – racist, misogynist, disablist, fascist is one of their favourites.

So where does that leave the “libertarian”, ostensibly neither left nor right but if anything anti-Statist? More on that further down. This now is the substance of what I wrote elsewhere on labels:

Being left or right is really an averaging of one’s total positions. This is why the term centre-left or centre-right still carry weight – it means one adopts positions – a few of each.

For example, I am with the Greens on saving rainforests and all sorts of gardens and foliage [bar weeds] but don’t agree the situation is critical – the Greens lie about the position, Kyoto was a lie. So that’s a bit each way. I know someone who is anti-abortion but not anti-PP. And so it goes on.

There’s a good litmus test – mention Israel and watch people scurry for their positions. The person who points immediately to Hamas rockets and the Arab failure to accept a neighbour is of the right, he might even say to deport any young male Arab between 12 and 40 from Israel immediately, in stark contrast to someone who leaps to say the word Palestinian, which is a faux term to us, the way it’s used nowadays and to defend the “Palestinian nation”, whatever that is.

And so we end up with a conglomeration of positions on issues roughly along left-right lines – it really does still have validity to a point, which is in itself a rightist position. The left deny any labels but then go full steam ahead and themselves label people – I was called a fascist for being to the right of Mao the other day, for believing in border controls.

Then look at media – that’s a solid guide too. If I – not now that it’s changed – used to go to the Telegraph, Mail, Breitbart, Spectator, Fox for my news, then I am of the right. If you automatically go to the Guardian, Independent, Washington Post, NYT, Huffington Post, MSNBC, if you think Rachel Maddow is a cool person or Katy Couric – then you are pure left. If you deny the BBC is a hotbed of leftism, guess what that says?

What do you think of Town Hall and Katie Pavlich? Ann Coulter? I love ’em. Where does that put me? I like the Daily Beast too and American Thinker. Not so keen on Michelle Malkin on some things, a bit opportunistic and Michelle Fields has sold her soul but let’s not dwell.

Language is a dead giveaway. If your rhetoric includes terms such as nationhood, sovereignty, border control, common sense, marriage, family, decency, respect, reality, our armed forces, low taxes, small business creates jobs – then you are clearly of a type. If the words fairness, equality and diversity, micro-aggressions, racist, sexist, quotas for women, fascist, trip off your tongue, then you are of the other persuasion.

Look at the word Capitalist. If I use the words crony capitalist or corporatists instead, if you say capitalism but I say free enterprise – then we have defined positions.

One excellent test is to view a Bill Whittle [Trifecta] or a Pat Condell youtube. If you say, after those – right on – then you are of a rightist persuasion. If you can’t stomach it, then I’m afraid that says something else. Try a few minutes of it:

Where we are politically is not how we label ourselves, as mentioned above, but what the average of our total positions is. My challenge is this – look through Ron Paul’s positions:


… and UKIP’s:


If you can agree with most of those positions, you are of the right. If you can agree with most of Corbyn’s or Obama’s, then you’re of the left.

So where does that leave the libertarian? Who is he or she? Obviously he/she wants personal freedom but that can be licence to do whatever you damn well like, no matter whom it hurts – and you deny it hurts anyone else – or maybe you believe in the John Stuart Mill classical liberalism – freedom of thought, word and action [plus worship] until it really does impinge on others.

Paedophilia? The wrecking of marriage?

Anti-Statism is a good position most of us can agree on – just take care of the diplomacy, armed forces and admin duties. An article of faith is that pollies are our servants, not our masters. That’s both left and right except that the left then abrogates that, hands the power to the State. left means state control, by definition.

Obviously, the left denies this. No no, we’re for freedom. Oh yeah – how about the smoking ban? State bans smoking? Are you for freedom on this? How about all the other bansturbation?

Drawing this together, the terms left and right do have validity, they do define an aggregate of positions on issues in general and they are generally a fair guide, without having to list every single position every single time it comes up in conversation.

The terms are useful but what the left hates are the pejorative overtones. What the right hates is being labelled “far” or any of those other isms. Fine to expunge labels, provided you do not drop into them yourself. In my case, I think labels are fine, they’re useful providing they’re accurate.

To label someone far right when he wants border controls but still supports immigration is hardly far right. To support immigration control is also what many of the left believe in too, the Old Left. The labels are useful in context but aren’t the be all and end all.

3 comments for “Of Trudeau and labels

  1. Hereward unbowed.
    October 22, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    I’m pretty sure some would attempt to label me as of the right and I don’t give a fig what they think.

    It’s all about shades and personal preferences ie, I would espouse non profit run companies [ie all profits ploughed back solely for the benefit of consumers] – FOR ALL UK utilities; GAS, WATER, ELECTRICITY. And that, hardly makes me some sort of right winger “I luv big business”. On about; big business – I hate the global conglomerates – their ideas and wield that they have, I hate planned obsolescence and I hate the way the car industry manipulates the governing bodies of the EU – ref the German car industry who set the limits and then cheat on the standards and emissions – btw global warming is bollox but who loves global warming the most? Can you GUESS? – yep big industry and the bankers of Goldman Sachs and anything they [GS] love – I despise with all my being.

    I stand with Libertarian principles mostly but do not and never would advocate open borders. A DE REGULATED – free market yes and yes to dismantling the big state.

    I believe that all men are born equal but despise all discriminatory laws – the UK discrimination act – defines and installs, augments discrimination as it legislates against white people – that’s not equal, that’s not fair. Multiculturalism is evidently the bane of equal society, it is a form of Apartheid where the rights of minorities are raised above the wishes and needs of the majority population – that is totalitarianism made government policy.
    Human rights, the ECHR and it’s indistinguishable stable mate the ECJ – is Cultural Marxist critical theory in action. Aye, the Communists and Gramscian’s and oh yes ‘the chosen race’ has something to answer for here – its laws are so devised to sever and smash what was once ‘our’ bonds of social unity and societal cohesion. Christiano society: has been put on a spit and daily is hog roasted by the critical theorists. Think – gender wars, LGBT rights, multiculturalism, paganism raised to recognition – even belief in global warming can now classed as some sort of sub religion it is all so designed to set man apart from his fellow human beings. Honestly, actually? we need to smash and bury the ideology of Cultural Marxism before it buries us and a weak, dissolute even depraved society, is ripe for the plucking, history will repeat itself and the threat and ultimate conquest – will come from the adherents of a creed still set in the Dark Ages which breeds barbarianism and will sweep in from the EAST.

    Though I believe it is already too late in the day to alter much, the state interferes too much in our lives though sadly, we have grown to expect far too much of the state. Gone is individual responsibility, which has we allowed to be taken out of our hands, it is way past time to wrest it back and the only way to do that is to grab back the spending power of taxation [our money] – making that a reality is the awkward part, I suggest an annual national plebiscite on all budgetry planning by the treasury.

    But who can really be typecast left or right? Unless, you read the Gruan of course.

    One other thing, I believe the EU superstate needs to be booted to the oblivion of historical footnote.


    BTW…………..Young Turd-eau, is a Socialist nutter, he was elected by the townies – not the big farming states out west. Canada will regret this electoral calamity and how much influence did Obama’s thugs have had on this election – we’ll never know but at a guess – the Washington and NYC Internationalists -were doing some very heavy lifting for the pro Frog empty head – and he is just that – thick as a six-by-two.

  2. Hereward unbowed.
    October 22, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    On commenting etc, James, I think your provider is taking the piss. It makes me think, if I were a left wing IT geek given to mucking up Libertarian/right wing blogs – OoL would be what the perfect example.

    The site is a ridiculously dishevelled mess and the hopelessly fragmented commenting is losing you hits – at that.

  3. October 22, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    If I am labelled, I have the following response; “I’m a (insert relevant term here)? What’s one of those, then?” Make your accuser define their label. Then you can have lots of fun shooting them down…… These conversations usually end with me saying; “I am not your label, I am a free man.” (Most of these idiots won’t get the reference.)

    As for Trudeau, I’m looking forward to saying; “Told you so…”

Comments are closed.