Friday, February 02, 2007

Questioning the Sanity of Liberals

The British author Paul Weston has sent us another essay, this one on the topic of modern liberals. Needless to say, Mr. Weston does not think highly of today’s liberals.

Now, I have to say that some of my best friends are liberals. They are well-meaning people who support abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and a large and proactive role of the federal government in peoples’ lives — all for their own good, of course. These are not evil people; they are friends who happen to hold different political opinions, and we can agree to disagree.

But Mr. Weston has a slightly different and more ominous kind of liberal in his sights. Read his article and see what you think.

Questioning the Sanity of Liberals
by Paul Weston

Is it possible to be well adjusted, attractive, educated, successful, and a liberal? Alternatively, is it possible to be both Politically Correct and a liberal at the same time? In order to understand the peculiar contradictions of contemporary liberalism it is necessary first to understand the meaning of classical liberalism circa 1900 and the liberalism of the West in 2007.

Classical liberalism meant a belief in the democratic process, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity (although never quite couched in such terms), the presumption of innocence, small government, the individual before the group, religious freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the rights of the child, an obligation to help the genuinely disadvantaged in society and, generally speaking, a live and let live laissez-faire attitude. It was the product of many hundreds of years of gradual evolution encompassing Christianity, the reformation, the enlightenment, common law, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It was a cause for the good and the term liberal one to be worn with pride.

How does this square with the self confessed metropolitan liberals of today? Imagine the smooth young advertising executive, hosting a dinner party in Greenwich village or Notting Hill, suddenly announcing to his Armani-clad coterie of media and public relations friends that, whilst holding himself up as a liberal, he disapproved of mass immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the European Union, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism.

As jaws dropped around the table some embarrassed diners would make their polite excuses and fumble for the keys to their oh so green Toyota Prius, whilst others, white-faced and shaking with genuine anger, would accuse him of racial bigotry, sexual bigotry, nationalism, religious fundamentalism and xenophobia. Yet whilst these proud young members of the privileged, cosseted elite may believe that they and they alone hold the moral credentials that personify the term liberal, they fail to understand that all their beliefs are the antithesis of true liberalism, that they have followed a long and winding path from the classical liberalism of 1900 to that which they are today — Totalitarian and Fascistic. In short they had mutated from Classical Liberalism to Politically Correct Liberalism.
- - - - - - - - - -
We see this in their extreme and hysterical reaction to those who disagree with them, their apparent hatred of Western civilisation, of Israel, of free speech, traditional education, our history and the leaders who helped make us what we are, of religion and of America — both internally and externally. And whilst they are busy hating the very society and culture which enables them to parasitically survive and prosper we see their love affair with all the ideologies that threaten our society, manifested in pro third-world immigration, multiculturalism, radical feminism and until very recently, Communism (oh, if only they could have made their economy work), and, of course, Islam.

And here the first of their varied pathological contradictions is exposed for the sane world to see — how is it possible for them to sympathise with Islam, a political ideology that runs counter to every issue they apparently deem of transcendental importance? One of the pet words of abuse that the Liberal love to smear their opponents with is Nazi yet are they so blind they cannot differentiate between the white Nazis of 1940 that we “right wing” classical liberalists went to war with and the brown Nazis of 2007 so admired by the “left wing” liberals of today?

Just look at the comparisons; Nazism was a racially supremacist, totalitarian, Messianic movement with an avowed aim of global domination; an ambition for which they were happy to use military force. They genuinely believed they were the master race and all others the sub-race. They promoted their ideology via overt propaganda in the brainwashing of their children; they wished to eradicate Jews and homosexuals; they thought women fit only for childbirth, the kitchen and the bedroom; and, finally, they thought nothing of killing their critics. Islam is… exactly the same. It is the 21st Century reincarnation of the Nazi Party and as every white European is now the new Jew or a member of the new sub-race, so Islam becomes our worst possible sweat-soaked nightmare as an enemy. And the Liberal’s new best friend.

Not content with ensuring that a new Nazi party is fostered and encouraged to grow within the West, the Liberal also works to ensure that his own society is traduced and destroyed from within. He does this by accepting the edicts of subversion planted by Soviet Moscow, with whose ideology and global ambitions they were not entirely unsympathetic. It says a great deal about the Liberal that he sympathised with an ideology penned by a man with an unhappy childhood and catastrophic adult life whose bearded scribbling led to a flawed revolution carried out in the wrong country at the wrong time which subsequently reduced the Soviet working man (at the expense of millions of deaths) to queuing for bread in Moscow whilst the capitalist working man was queuing for beer in Ibiza.

When the Communists were forced — purely by geographical necessity — to waylay their tanks used so successfully in the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they turned instead to the use of Western liberals as their fellow travellers/useful idiots to create economic and cultural mayhem within their own countries, as a prelude to the post anarchic emergence of their longed for Communist International. To this end Western liberals attempted to destroy blue-collar industry via Trades Union action and white-collar commerce by the ruining of education through “progressive” educational techniques. In keeping with their Soviet counterparts they sought, and still seek, to abolish religion and morality, and — via feminism — the family.

They do this, as we well know, by their capture of the media and educational establishments within which they use the same brainwashing techniques geared toward the same ends as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao (see: Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education). The political brainwashing of children is a manifestation found only in totalitarian societies. With past dictators it was a necessity to enable permanent power; in the West today it portends a coming dictatorship — why else would they do it? Although Lenin, the propagandist ancestor of today’s BBC or CNN, was the originator of the brainwashing of children, it was difficult, given the technology of the time, to systematically brainwash the adults, but the BBC and CNN have simply taken his practice and adapted it to an international, far reaching audience, surpassing even Hitler.

Hitler, whilst adopting the Lenin’s techniques for indoctrinating children, took adult indoctrination to a whole new level, as stated by Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments: Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in histor. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technological development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loudspeaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought….” What he could have done with twenty-four hour TV does not really beg the question because CNN and the BBC are doing it anyway, subtly perhaps, but this is an even greater method — given time.

Hitler was intent on using such propaganda in order to form the Master Race, Lenin the New Socialist Man, but what exactly does the Liberal of today wish to bring about? It is not, despite his insistence, The One World, Socialist, Multicultural Man, because this is where the Liberal deviates from the slavish following of his ideological ancestors — who at least attempted to advance their own countries — and sets up the indigenous population of his own country as the hate figure to be vilified. Hate figures are always necessary in warfare or dictatorships, be it Oceania, the bourgeoisie or the Jew. The white, male, heterosexual, Judaeo-Christian European now fulfils this model by dint of his imperial past and his supposed present day oppression/exploitation of non-whites, females and homosexuals.

That the lumpen masses are relatively unconcerned is due not merely to their lack of cogent reasoning but to their numerical advantage. Why should they feel threatened by people they seldom see and via media censorship, rarely hear about? But demographics suggest that the white European will become a minority all across the West within the next fifty years, in some countries even sooner. This reality, coupled with our acceptance of the type of abuse reserved historically for Hitler’s Jews and Lenin’s middle/upper-classes should cause us grave reservations. What on earth is the Liberal thinking of when he introduces “Anti-Racist” maths into school lessons or “Whiteness Studies” into university lectures? Can he not see where this leads, how can he be so blind?

Whilst they are busy beavering away at these destructive antics, the Liberal will demonise, vilify and intimidate, both verbally and physically, any opponents who stand in his way. By such repressive actions he again casts himself into the same mould as Hitler, who once said: “A systematically one sided argument must be adopted towards every problem that has to be dealt with. He must never admit that he might be wrong, or that people with a different point of view might be right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated”.

The Liberal’s repressive attitude toward free speech can be seen on University campuses across the West today, even if liquidation is a step too far. Hilary Clinton was/is a firm advocate of such behaviour, having immersed herself as a none-too-attractive youth in “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Yet whilst they shout down and intimidate the defenders of Western society, they seem blissfully unaware of the destruction their policies have inflicted on the young, the poor and the elderly - the very people the Liberal purports to represent, and the future international consequences that their peculiar ideology of multiculturalism can only bring about.

It is not conservative policy that has resulted in millions of our children leaving school ill-equipped to succeed in our First World economy, and it is not conservative policy that brainwashes these children into a blindness to the racial dangers they will face in later years. It is not conservative policy that causes drug-addicted lower classes to live in crime and squalor whilst the metropolitan liberal elites indulge themselves with recreational drugs, and it is not conservative policy that has bought about the destruction of the family and the serial sexual abuse perpetrated by this month’s “mummy’s new boyfriend”. It is not conservative policy that confines the elderly to their houses for fear of becoming the victims of violent, moral-free children, and it is not conservative policy that allows these feral children to have no fear of the police. It is not conservative policy that has turned the West into an outpost of Arabia and it is not conservative policy that threatens the white European with the very real possibility of eradication well before the end of this century. And finally it is not conservative policy that criminalizes any person who dares point out any of the above.

Not only is the Liberal apparently unaware of such destruction, he also appears unaware of where this will lead. This is another pathological contradiction that so assuages his ideology. By any objective analysis the path he has set Western society upon can only end in anarchy and racial based civil war, out of which must arise either an Islamic West or a counterrevolution led at best by a Pinochet, at worst a Hitler. From the cohesion and peace of the 1950’s we are descending into the bitter ideological struggles of the 1930’s Weimar Republic, the reds versus the brownshirts, the liberal left versus the “far” right. Whichever is the winner, there can be only one absolute guarantee; the liberal infidel or the liberal traitor will be the first up against the wall. How can they be so blind?

Perhaps the answer to this lies in Tammy Bruce’s book “The Death of Right and Wrong” which ranks as a necessary read in her exposure of the damage caused by liberal ideology. Tammy Bruce was a high-ranking activist in the National Association of Women (NOW) but became so disgusted by their attitudes that she broke ranks and started to write from the compassionate “right”. She believes the driving force of the Liberal to be “Malignant Narcissism”, a mental condition attributable to childhood abuse and trauma inflicted by parents, authority figures, or peers.

Bruce quotes psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg, who describes it thus: “This pathological idealisation of the self as an aggressive self clinically is called malignant narcissism. And this is very much connected with evil and with a number of clinical forms that evil takes, such as the pleasure and enjoyment in controlling others, in making them suffer, in destroying them, or the casual pleasure in using others’ trust and confidence and love to exploit them and to destroy them.”

Tammy Bruce then goes to say in her own words: “The core components of this syndrome are pathological narcissism, paranoid traits and aggression. Self-preservation, self-promotion and maintaining power are all traits that prevail in the malignant narcissist. The people and issues they supposedly serve exist only to be exploited for their own benefit”.

Bruce then concludes with this damning comment: “I have participated at both the local and national levels of NOW; I have spent time with other feminists and gay special-interest groups and their leaders; I have worked in the entertainment industry and all forms of news media; and I have worked with political campaigns for democratic candidates. I have also spent time around universities. I can say with full confidence that what I have seen driving and controlling the actions of the Left Elite in all these venues - culturally, politically and socially - is malignant narcissism. Issues are used and people exploited for the sake of power. Malignant Narcissism is the god of the Left Elite.”

One need not look far to see examples of this. Bill and Hilary Clinton, Cherie Blair, Jane Fonda, Marx and Engels, Andrea Dworkin, Germaine Greer etc etc. The list of liberals and dysfunctional childhoods is endless. Liberalism and mental dysfunction go hand in hand, leading to the reality that is the West today; our dysfunctional elites so consumed with virulent self-loathing that they are happy to preside over the eradication of the society they feel so damaged them. The West has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics have taken control at all the various levels in all the various institutions that shape our future.

So, after fifty years of the ongoing, politically correct, liberal revolution what exactly has the Liberal achieved? That they have partially destroyed our race, culture, society and countries is not in question, but neither is it a result of well-intentioned incompetence. It is success on a massive scale, if you measure success as evil intent. They have caused untold hurt to the poor, the young, the vulnerable and the elderly and as they did this they utilised the propaganda and repression techniques descended directly from the two most evil empires in history, Nazism and Communism.

Their present flirtation with Islam is proof, if further proof is needed, that the appeal of brutal totalitarianism overrides their professed love of feminism and homosexuality, thereby redirecting onto themselves Hitler’s statement with regard to the liquidation of opponents: “The morally squeamish intellectual may be shocked by this kind of thing but the masses are always convinced that right is on the side of the active aggressor.” Perhaps this is why they favour the bellicose invasion of their countries via third world immigration and multicultural propaganda, but what this realistically shows is that they are consumed with such a loathing for the West and indeed themselves that they favour their own ethnic and civilisational demise and are characteristically unmoved that they will take us down with them.

To compound obscenity upon obscenity they deliberately camouflage this wanton, genocidal destruction under the banner of tolerance, diversity and equality. They are worse than the Nazis, they are treacherous Nazis. In answer to the opening question of this essay, they are not balanced, sane people, and they are not liberals. Their actions speak louder than their mendacious words; they are self-hating malignant narcissists. To call themselves liberal is as duplicitously self-serving as were a genuine Nazi to promulgate the same views he held in 1940 yet call himself a liberal today. Politically correct liberalism IS Nazism coupled with Communism, whilst classical liberalism is the ideology of we right wing opponents. They are insane, or so utterly evil that that in itself is a form of insanity.

We scribblers and readers of the supposed political “right” are not by nature terribly interested in politics. We were never radicals, activists or wannabe revolutionaries. That we exist today is purely a reaction to the Liberal’s attempts to bring down the society in which we live. Without them I would suggest that the vast majority of us would be content to mow our lawns, raise our families, pay taxes, give to charity and support benign political parties. YOU the Liberal have made us what we are today, YOU the Liberal have bought us into existence. Just as a peaceful man may be driven to assault a paedophile that molests his child, so we exist as a counter to your ongoing damage to our countries and by default our children and future children. Your belief that we will go quietly into the night is only further evidence of your arrogant disconnection from reality or sanity.

But now, with the advent of the Internet we have access to information that validates what we suspected but could not prove, and the means of using this information to spread and facilitate a defence. We’ve rumbled you, my liberal friend, you can no longer censor us out of your insane destruction of our countries and our cultures. You have lost your grip on the means of information and if you think that you are the self righteously angry defenders of the oppressed, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You have no idea how oppressed you make us feel, how angry we are, or how many we number. This justifiable anger is directed principally at the malignant narcissist liberal whose intention has always been to destroy, but you, the middle class liberals filled not with hatred but with well-intentioned guilt must understand that you have been duped, your alliance with politically correct liberalism is just as destructive, and we have had enough.

You, the Liberal, must understand that the people whose race and culture is being slowly swept away by politically correct liberalism are the very people who built the civilisation you have inherited. If this civilisation were to die we would become a tribal Iraq, Somalia or Yugoslavia. So I implore you, recognise the reality of what is happening, reappraise your idea of liberalism and channel your guilt not into the past but into the future, the guilt you would surely feel — you must surely feel — if you allowed your children and your grandchildren to inherit a Third World society, with all that implies, bought about by you — The Liberal.

(c) Paul Weston 2007. (Available to reproduce without financial gain)


History Snark said...

Terrific. People wonder why I hate liberals. This explains it pretty well. I'm gonna link this to my blog, and also send the link to my 1 liberal friend.

Thanks, Paul. And thanks, Baron.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Well written, flows nicely. But some issues :

1. Starts well, the classic meaning of liberal needs explaining nowadays. A liberal education used to be a very fine thing indeed.
2. Somewhat overblown Reductio ad Hitlerum
3. On second though make that way overblown, describing the liberal as a culmination of all the 20th centures totalitarian ideologies becomes a meaningless caricature.
4. Motivations? Are they malign demons from hell? Surely we are talking about 95% misguided nice people who mean well, but are trapped by media amplified self reinforcing specious lies and 5% malignant totalitarian liers who poison the chalice.
6. The key mechanism and motivation why nice harmless people destory themselves surely is guilt - see that post two days ago about Noreen Golfman for a prime example.
5. But about the 5%. My personal pet Satan is missing. That Hitler chap is well and good, and a bit of Stalin goes a long way, but I miss the villains who gave us the disease, the Frankfurt School and associates - Lukacs, Gramsci, Marcuse, Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, Derrida etc. And their disciples who are running around today. They only barely hide their influences because the importance of the Cultural Marxists is largely unexposed - see Bassam Tibi name dropping.
6. Questioning the sanity of liberals is fine, but see Shrinkwrapped's series on Narcissism, where the shrink explains in detail.
7. I would say to one and all who have not yet done so, read Larry Auster's The unprincipled exception. On second thought, read his whole blog, its an education on liberalism and a reeducation in rhetoric, semantics and rigorous logic.

I enjoyed the read, but its realy a well written rant more than anything. There were ideas there, but they need refining.

Vol-in-Law said...

I agree with fellow peacekeeper's points, except one small one on the Frankfurt School:


FWIW, according to my cultural Marxist academic colleagues, they count Habermas as more of a genuine-liberal-inclined heretic, and a traitor to true cultural Marxism.

From what I know it was Gramsci's ideas as developed by Herbert Marcuse that were the real basis of cultural Marxism as we experience it today. I think Marcuse is the key.

David M said...

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 02/02/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Oh crap. You're quite right Vol, thanks for pointing out my shoddy list. Habermas is very much a student of the Frankfurt school but not really an identifiable part of cultural marxism. Habermas was a student of Adorno, he fell out with Horkheimer and then later again with Derrida (Derrida is not of the school, bet conversly important to modern cultural marxism). I didn't realise that he was regarded as a traitor by a wider audience. Interesting.

Quite, Marcuse is key. But I understand his chief contribution was popularizing some very esoteric ideas (of Horkheimer and Adorno) for the US audience, as well as his own contributions. "Eros and Civilization", and "Repressive Tolerance".

Vol, you have cultural Marxist academic colleagues? Now that is frightening.

Vol-in-Law said...

"Vol, you have cultural Marxist academic colleagues?"

They do wonderful champagne staff seminars! :) I've learned a lot from being in a milieu where cultural Marxism is actually formulated, rather than the mindless propagation through the mass media you get further down the line. These actual intellectuals seem a very nice bunch in person, for all their determination to destroy western civilisation. By contrast, the lawyer-academics at my previous (more prestigious) University were the sort who just receive the pre-digested C-M dialectic at third hand with zero critical consideration, and they were much less tolerant of me.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful, simply wonderful.

Ironmistress said...

In my dictionary "liberal" isn't the opposite of "conservative". It is opposite of "authoritarian". Likewise, "authoritarian" and "conservative" aren't synonymous, but the opposite for "conservative" is "radical".

One of the best aspects of conscription was that it really brought the youth of the nation together and I saw boys (and girls) of all walks of life - country boys, city slickers, bullies, nerds, factory workers, store clerks, Joe and Jane Averages, criminals, students, substance abusers, athletes - you name it. It taught me to refer people as individuals and their individual vices and merits and not as member of their reference group. The service did grind the surplus edginess off me and gave me a reality check. Later when I led platoon and company it taught me a lot of psychology. It also taught me to tolerate all kinds of people and also see things in many aspects.

I consider myself as a Conservative Centrist Liberal, which means I am tolerant on social and societal issues, I have strict principles and ethical value basis, and I am pragmatic on economical issues. As an engineer one gram of experience is me value of one kilo of theory and a ton of authority.

Let's say there are many issues where there is no "best" solution but only "least evil". Likewise, perfect is the worst enemy of optimal. As an engineer I am familiar also with optimalizing problems: few issues are linear functions, where a little is good and a lot is excelleent. Usually the truth is somewhere in-between.

The problem with intellectuals is that they seldom are intelligent and almost always lack wisdom. I don't know how it is in US, but the brightest youth in academia go for branches which prepare you for a profession: lawyers, doctors, engineers, economists, scientists. The not-so-bright go for military or politics. The Humanist studies get the mediocrities.

When you study engineering, law, medicine or sciences you need not only intelligence but also imagination, creativity and skill to think with your own brain and perceive greater concepts. You have to have skill to apply theory into practise.

This same skill is not required of those who do Humanist studies or philosphy. All what is needed is hard butt to do reading, remember everything by heart and ear to listen to the authorities. There are very little interfaces with the academia and the everyday life with such studies - and such studies do not give you any proficiency for any profession.

Mediocrities know that and they also know they are lifers for academia.

Therefore someone who has taken up any Humanist studies or theoretical philosophy really has no other viable career options than academia. Instead of getting a well-paid job in the business or industry, most Humanists are doomed to academia for the rest of their lives.

Academia is a world separate of the real life; an ivory tower with its very own rules. Whereas those youngsters going to business or industry usually are VERY indifferent to politics or Conservative or otherwise have their feet on ground, those in Academia, who live totally off the practical life, are able to put up totally airheaded ideologies and lift their feet 2 m or more off the ground. For them, theory and ideology is far more important than practise. Since they seldom have any self-criticism (which is a VERY important property for a businessman or engineer), they can come up with really outre theories and think that is the absolute truth and declare it as such. They usually disdain practise and "dirty work" and seldom have any practical skills.

That IMO is the reason why people calling themselves as Liberals usually seldom have so-called everyday wisdom. They construct nice and well-meaning theories - which either do not stand five minutes on colliding the grim realities of the real life - or prove disastrous when applied to practise.

The problem with the really clever youngsters is that they are after money and career in private sector - not in politics or public. They are quiet. It is just the loud mediocrities who keep noise of themselves - and who get to get their voices heard.

History Snark said...

Mellivora, Nicely put, of course. The problem is that liberals actually tend to be authoritarian- they are so focused on their ideal solution, that they won't allow anyone to disagree, because that is "hate speech" or "repression" or "political incorrectness".

Reading your comment, I remember again the quote from Orwell- something about the kind of ideas that only an intellectual could believe, because nobody else would be so naive.

Anonymous said...

"they seem blissfully unaware of the destruction their policies have inflicted"

"Not only is the Liberal apparently unaware of such destruction, he also appears unaware of where this will lead."

That's the rank-and-file; later he gets to the leaders -- many of these just don't care:

"The people and issues they supposedly serve exist only to be exploited for their own benefit”.

"Issues are used and people exploited for the sake of power. Malignant Narcissism is the god of the Left Elite."

It's about them and their power. To Hell with the problems the rest of us face, and to Hell with us. No different from many other dictators.

"You have no idea ... how many we number."

Nixon mentioned that he had the support of the "silent majority" -- and a little research proved him right.

It's funny to watch these people protesting at western universities. A few are hatefully leading the protest, telling the others what to chant; the others just do as they are told. Inevitably, there are also the harcore troublemakers, looking to "rumble" with someone, anyone.

X said...

This rant has put something in to context for me. I once read, or perhaps heard, someone state that an intellectual is someone who, when sitting in a room all by themselves with a tea-cosy on the table in front of them, will not put it on their head like a hat. Wheverver I heard it, I got the feeling that the speaker (or writer) was being all self-congratulatory about how superior and sensible these intellectuals are, and conversely how silly and ape-like the people who do try it on are.

What I thought then, and what I strongly believe now, is that they didn't quite get it, and this rant confirms it. The intellectual of the piece is presumably a liberal (how can he be "intellectual" unless he believes all the liberal talking points, eh?). If he is, as the writer has stated, a narciscist, he will look at the tea cosy*, think about how he would deride someone for wearing it, and refuse to puyt himself in a position where he would have to deride himself. And then he'll justify it by feeling all superior about how he resists the temptation to act like a fool.

Most people don't mind acting like a fool from time to time. It can be fun. BUt then, they don't continually view everything through the lense of how it affects their image...

I mean, who here wouldn't let their hair down occasionally and have a bit of fun when nobody's looking? Exactly!

This is a generalisation of course, but as a rule I've found that the hardcore left tends not to have a very good sense of humour. I don't either, about certain subjects, but neither do I fly off the handle when people make jokes about things that I happen to believe in. Try joking about how global warming will give you beach-side apartments in Uxminster and all you'll get is a torrent of abuse about your callous bigotry.

*A tea cosy, for those that don't know, is a knitted or otherwise fabric-maunfactured cover that fits sbnugly over the traditional teapot, usually with a hole for the handle and another for the spout. Some even had a little flap for the lid. Others are less sophisticated. All of them make great hats.

flyingrodent said...

Well done, guys - I've long enjoyed your satirical works, your parodies have been some of the funniest I've ever seen.

But with this blizzard of straw men, thankfully attributed to some other joker, you've really outdone yourselves.

This is certainly the most proficient exercise in shadow boxing I've seen on the internet this week - congratulations.

al fin said...

The problem with using pathological narcissism as an excuse for the new left's idiocy, is that it is based on the very pivotal idea of the new left--victimisation by society (or rigid parents as a proxy for society). Victim, victim, victim. The new left loves victims for they provide it with an excuse to swoop in for the rescue.

Global warming really gives you beachside apartments in Uxtminster? Count me in.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Vol thats an very interesting observation that the inner circle are more reasonable people ... one of the fascinating aspects of C-M is the changes as it trickles down from the handfull of illuminati who have really understand, throught the shrill politically correct (the Kos kids for instance) true believers and finally to the average liberals.

Al fin : The victim is virtue phenomenon. Quite so, one already inside the thinking would see pathological narcissism not only as an excuse but as a virtue. Yesterday I was one of the perps, but now I'm a victim of society, so no more guilt for me.

Ironmistress said...

Being from Scandinavian stock, I know quite well the concept of welfare state and its basis.

The Scandinavian welfare state was founded on five pillars:

1) Social Democracy. Unlike Marxism, Social Democracy was a blue collar movement, springing from pragmatics and realities going over the ideology. While Marxism wants to slaughter the Holy Cow of Capitalism, Social Democracy insists milking it is a better idea.

2) Scandinavian concept of "lagomhet". There is no word equivalent for adjective "lagom" - when something is "lagom" it means it is decent enough for everyone and something which is neither too good nor too bad, but fitting in. The concept also means taking care of everyone and not leaving anyone behind.

3) Lutheranism. Lutheranism stresses strict work ethics and societalism. The Lutheran concept of work is that it is a task God has given us - no matter what you do for living, it is service of God in itself. It isn't that matter how much you earn but how good you are in what you do. Lutheranism stresses also honesty to the boot and concept of fair dinkum - that is an especially important in a country where climate is downright hostile.

4) Family ethics. The Scandinavian concept has always stressed strict family ties and homes - not clannish structure like in many macho cultures nor broken families and single parenting as has been typical in many lower class lifestyles. The family has covered, not only the nuclear family, but also grandparents, uncles and aunts on both sides, grandchildren and cousins - even second cousins are still parts of extended family. Many Scandinavians can trace their families back for centuries.

5) Social contract between state and individuals. Scandinavian countries have never been feudal, but King has always relied on free yeomen, and king and yeomen have formed the counterpoise for noblemen and burghers. As result, Scandinavian armies generally rely on conscription, and Scandinavian officials generally are VERY honest and lawful. It is just that everyone has been able to trust each other - this contract has been inherited from forebears to offspring. If Czar Nicholas II hadn't been so awfully bad ruler and had not been perceived as an oathbreaker, Romanovs would still be on Finnish throne.

As I mentioned, Social Democracy is a working class movement. It was composed by workers who lacked formal education but who were intelligent and clearly knew the difference between practise and theory, and knew which would work in practise and what wouldn't.

As contrast, Marxism has always been an academic movement. It is practised and professed by men and women who have never stained their hands in machine oil or axle grease. Marxism traces its philosophical roots on Hegel - on which also Nazism traces its philosophical roots - and Marxism has never cared of the contradiction of reality and practise. While Marxism pretends to be a working class movement, instead it is an extremely elitistic movement. Real workers who have trade and skills have always voted for Social Democrats - Communists gather their votes from the unwashed masses and unskilled workers.

Now think about an engineer like me. I don't know how it is in US, but in Finland to complete the engineer's diploma, one has to have at least 10 weeks work experience in industry, both in practical work and as an official. That is to make sure the colleges produce engineers who know what they are doing both in theory and in practise - not just air-headed nerds who can do calculations but have no idea on how a combustion engine works.

Marxists have always disdained menial work, while no engineer is ever too fine to stain his hands on grease. Now how many of those people who consider themselves as working class lightbearers really could stand one single week at blast furnace, paper machine or cement mixer?

The most gruesome idol of proletariat is Don Ernesto Lynch Guevara de la Serna, "Che Guevara" - born in one of the most ancient and noble Navarrese aristocratic families, gotten education of a doctor, never done a single day of menial job and instead spending all his life in the traditional career of noblemen - waging war. If such travesty was really a Marxist hero, then each and every person who ever has stained his or her hands on engine oil should shun Marxism to the boot.

Ironmistress said...

Continuing: The Marxists have managed to demolish or damage almost all the pillars of the welfare state here in Scandinavia:

1) Social Democracy went on decline with the decline of true working class. The Marxists infiltrated or took over the Left in all Scandinavian countries. Instead of clever but uneducated moderates with common sense, the Leftist parties are now full of air-headed academic Leftists with university degree and ideology but very little practical awareness and common sense.

2) No matter what the Marxists themselves say, Marxism is an utterly elitistic ideology. Its goal is a society of violently levelled masses ruled by a narrow elite - not unlike those in underdeveloped countries. The society in Marxist and Nazi states resemble each other almost perfectly. That is no coincidence - both Nazis and Marxists draw their philosophical roots to Hegelian dialectics.

3) Marxism is a strictly Atheist movement, and one of its main purposes is obliteration of religion - in order to be able to brainwash the masses with its own ideologyt. A religionless mass is easy to brainwash and control and get convinced of the most insane ideologies thinkable. Unfortunately you can take a man out of religion but not religion out of man. Destroying a sane religion doesn't mean people becoming rationalist and sensible. It just means an insane religion will take over once the ideology has worn off.

4) Marxism hates the family above anything as it perceives it as a threat. The reason is again elitism: it is easy for the elite to control rootless masses which do not feel sense of belonging into anything. Therefore Marxism promotes single parent families, male hate, Feminism and anything that undermines the basis of the family institution. Likewise, by converting the safety net into a hammock, Marxists ensure the continuity of the hoi polloi - trashfolk - and gaining votes.

5) The aim of Marxists is dictatorship - that is mentioned in all Marxist writings. Dictators do not make social contracts: they dictate. By demolishing the social contract between the society and the people they strike a wedge between the citizen and the society, making it easier for a violent revolution of the elite to take place.

That is why Marxists ally with the most reactionary force thinkable - Islamism. It is all pure Realpolitik - the enemy of your enemy is your friend. By promoting the reactionary forces which oppose the Western society, they undermine the basis of the society, preparing it ready for the revolution. Too bad Islamists are even more straightforward, fanatic and violent than Marxists - they have sold the Islamists the very rope onto which the Islamists will hang them.

al fin said...

Mellivora makes some excellent points. If what you say is true, M, then social democrats should despise Marxists with every ounce of their beings.

Instead, what is generally seen is that social democrats somehow pave the way for Marxists, allowing Marxism to succeed social democracy. Why this happens, I do not know. Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist, predicted that such a thing would inevitably happen. But it has been a few years since I read "Human Action", and I cannot explain the mechanism.

Marxists do despise social democrats, and refer to them as "useful idiots." Marxists also disguise themselves as social democrats and mainstream populists, in order to achieve power. And perhaps social democrats sometimes allow themselves to succumb to the temptation of greater power that Marxism offers them.

flyingrodent said...

Just out of interest, how do self-proclaimed anti-fascists reconcile their accusations of "grievance mongering" with their daily blog-fest of grievances against the Islamic hordes?

Yourselves and LGF are Tommyguns of grievances, blasting the internet with fully automatic blasts of furious jeremiads. If you stopped moaning about the Muslims, you'd have to stop blogging.

I know I generally post offensive, piss-taking snark, but I'd really love an answer to this question.

Truly, it makes no sense to me.

Vol-in-Law said...

"Just out of interest, how do self-proclaimed anti-fascists reconcile their accusations of "grievance mongering" with their daily blog-fest of grievances against the Islamic hordes?"

I think the answer is that 'they' are lying, 'we' are not? In any case, if you don't subscribe to liberal universalism, it's not a problem. For traditionalists, including Islamists, that the enemy uses a tactic against us doesn't stop us using it against them.

Captain USpace said...

This is excellent, very eye-opening. Some left liberals should be strapped down and forced to listen to this being read to them, because most would be incapable due to fear of the truth of reading the whole thing themselves I suspect.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never debate moonbat thoughts

truth eventually wins
one on one they will fold

montecristo said...

This is a very strong article by Paul Weston,and makes a lot of sense.
Without Islam we'd have nothing to talk about? Wrong ,we could forget all the crap in our lives and get on with more positive things,until that happens we can talk about it as much as we want.
Studying engineering or law doesn't mean you know politics , perhaps you'd be better off knowing how to separate the two.
Very interesting article, Paul.

Ironmistress said...

al fin, that is exactly the case! SDs do despise the Marxists to the boot - the 40s, 50 and 60s saw a continuous fight within the trade unions, sports clubs, societies and labour parties between the Communists and SDs - USSR backed the Communists, and SDs got funding from pro-liberty parties. That fight was especially bitter and hard, and even murders did occur. At schools working class children beat each other depending on which sides their parents backed.

The problem with the SDs is that it was - I dare to already use the past tense - it was a working class movement. It was tied strictly on the industrial working class, and led by its best men and women.

Once the real working class - the industrial blue collars - eroded, so did SDs. The erosion was twofold: on the other hand the conditions of the workers improved, they got wealthier and better paid, and the working class people got their children to colleges, tech and law schools and universities. On the other hand, the Western world saw deindustrialization - production industry outsourced and offshored to underdeveloped countries for cheaper labour. Those two forces - the structural change of the society which eroded the industrial working class - also eroded Social Democracy.

The children of the working class are especially eager for social climbing. Once they got education and well-paying middle class jobs, they also moved to vote right-wing parties. for example in Finland, the Kokoomus (Coalition) party, which once was a small party of civil servants, clergy and officials, has now become the dominant right-wing party - it gained those votes which the SDs lost.

On the other hand, not all blue-collar kids were that lucky. Some of them got stuck on the dead-end jobs or found themselves in the dead-end studies in the Academia. They got overtly enthusiastic on Marxism - effectively committing a treason on the values their fathers and mothers got dear.

Communism went bankrupt both economically and morally, but Marxism is alive and still going strong. While right-wingers got the votes of the working class children who succeeded, the Greens are the brainchild of the Marxists. The Greens are not unlike a watermelon - green outside, red inside. But unlike the Communists, Greens seem not to have an unified program, but being merely the overall protest movement.

When the working class eroded and the best minds of the working class moved to middle class and became centrists and right-wingers, it was now those rotten eggs who had no direct contact on so-called honest work but had spent their adult lives in academia and became impregnated by Marxism, who infiltrated the SDs. That was an especially sad incident - while SDs emerged as the victors in the SD-Communist setup, the Communists in a sense got their revenge by infiltrating the SDs and taking them over.

When you insist "SDs paved road for Marxism", it wasn't quite like that. It was just that SDs kept the Marxists out of bay (and Copmmunism out of free world), but eroded themselves in the process as well.

Once there was no more a real working class - and no more a counterforce for the academic rotten eggs - the remnants of the Marxists are now the loudest voices of the Left. In a sense this is an especially sad situation - right-wing parties are often seen as inhumane and mean loudspeakers of the filthy rich and the grand capital, and there is no more a sensible, plausible alternative - voting the leftists as a counterforce for the faceless, mindless and ruthless global capitalism is a vote to an even more ruthless and brutal ideology.

We would sorely need an ideology which would respect and promote the basic values - home, faith and fatherland, and which would provide an alternative to both meanness of the right and flakiness of the left.

Actually the Lenin's term "useful idiots" does not refer to SDs. It refers to the intellectuals and humanists of any other ideologies - the Liberal Christians, Christian Democrats etc - those who help the Marxist cause because of their idealism - to their own demise. SDs have never been allies to Marxists but a class enemy - the enmity has been mutual.

Required said...

I am really, really sick of this nonsense:

"mass immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the European Union, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism"

Will someone please tell me how the hell atheism ends up in this list? I'm an atheist and I cannot stand most of the other portions that are listed here (Homosexual marriage I really don't care eiether way about). But why is atheism thrown into this pot?

For the record, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are all atheists. And they can be ranked as pretty fierce, and pretty influential, voices against the jihad. Look at the impact of Sam Harris's _The End of Faith_. As an atheist, he can attack Islam right at its root - the whims, wishes and air that are dignified under the name of "faith".

We need every mind we can get in this struggle. Don't try and throw the blame for this fiasco on the atheists.