I have wondered and studied long to understand the effete, mindless and
soul-less left.
I have wondered often how apparently intelligent people could embrace
a cult that has so little to offer.
Or as Keynes put it in 1926:
“Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians
of Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised
so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and,
through them, the events of history.”
The
End of Laissez-Faire
By watching in great detail the behaviour of many who subscribe to
the nonsense, I am at last beginning to have some idea of the real driving
forces behind those joining cult
socialism.
In my view, the over-arching drive is cowardice. It
is a cowardice brought on by living lives wrapped in cotton-wool, with
no serious pressures to produce or take real responsibilities:
over-grown children protected from birth, protected from the real world
by a powerful civilisation and the rule of law.
Unfortunately, this ‘protection’ tends to reduce people,
who appear from their years and physical bulk to be ‘adults’,
to remain as squalling children in a nursery, expecting their every
wish and desire to be supplied by mummy in the guise of the state.
It has been observed that middle-class people raised in complex societies
to complex philosophies and religions are the most vulnerable to cults.
After years of exams and pressure, the cults offer them a simplistic
world view where, to their relief, they no longer have the pressure
to think and learn.
The cult plays on the idealism of the young raised in such an environment,
tells them conformity to the group makes them ‘special’
and ‘caring’, meanwhile the cult takes the responsibility
and stress of making decisions out of their lives.
This mindset at the heart of the socialist dream also reduces populations
to a mental and physical slavery. Strangely, it is those under the full
developed socialist
dictatorships of soviet Russia and Iraq who end up developing the
guts to oppose and fight for freedom. It is the christianist right,
with its emphasis on individual responsibility, that fights to free
the enslaved, while the socialists of the West under Socialism
lite wander slowly towards the abattoirs of the unfree
states that are the inevitable outcome of socialism.
Socialists populate and nurture mindless societies where ‘personality’
is expressed in fashionable (that is copied conformity) clothes, musak
and slack pre-formed, cliched ‘opinions’ – another
expression of cowardice in the drive to conform.
Just as socialism preys on the children of middle-class strivers, so
also the jihadi
cult masters with their political ambitions trade a form of Islam
lite to the drones of the Middle East; an ‘Islam’
where mayhem and murder are no longer forbidden but encouraged and advocated.
This is another fashionable route to ‘being special’ without
serious work or study. Little wonder the apologists for the two cults
are now joined at the hip; it is increasingly difficult to tell their
slogans apart.
As you will see from the outline caricature in the Hanson
article cited below, these people do not care for the poor, the
oppressed, or the uneducated. They do not do anything productive or meaningful for others.
Instead, they just whine and caterwaul when brave and more caring people
do act.
I was particularly interested to note the pseudo-outrage
of the left at the ‘emotionalism’ on the death of ‘princess’
Diana. You see Diana actually did act in a caring manner:
visiting the sick, being open-hearted and working against the mines
that blew off the legs of the poor and disenfranchised.
Now, why this pseudo-outrage?
I think it is because a person like Diana shows up the cowardly would-be
cosmopolitan left, while the masses respond to a generous and caring
person. The left wish to talk a good fight, but want nothing of the
real, nasty, dirty world from which they carefully cocoon themselves
in suburbia.
They simply do not care about the suffering in an Iraq, they just wish
to pretend to care. I am amazed by how often the left accuse those who
are brave and who do act of ‘cowardice’. I think this is
a large key to their behaviour.
I believe they are projecting their own cowardice upon others in order
to distract attention from their own real behaviour. All the obvious
dishonesty and inconsistency in their ‘arguments’, all the contradictory
reasons for leaving the Iraqis in the shit, all stem from a fear
that they may be expected to act rather that lie around
in their protected cotton-wool world without any responsibility.
Let alone, that they might respond to any request, let alone that they
get off their steadily expanding bottoms and act to help others, or
even be taxed that others with more guts continue to protect their narrow
selfish ‘lives’.
“Perhaps the result of this frustration is that European intellectuals
damn the United States for action in Iraq, but lament that they could
do nothing in the Balkans. Democrats at home talk of the need for
idealism abroad, but fear the dirty road of war that sometimes is
part of that bargain - thus the retreat into "democracy is good,
BUT..." So here we have the global throng that focuses on one
purported American crime to the next, as it simmers in the luxury
of its privilege, education, and sophistication - and exhibits little
power, new ideas, intellectual seriousness, or relevance.
“In this context, the Iraqi elections were surely poorly attended,
or illegitimate, or ruined by violence, or irrelevant, or staged by
America - or almost anything other than a result of a brave, very
risky, and costly effort by the United States military to destroy
a fascist regime and offer something better in its place.”[Quoted
from Victor
Hanson]
Meanwhile, have a look at the real world as seen by the UN parasites
who spend so much time whining about the freeing of Iraq, while being
involved in the vast theft of money from the Iraqi people. The UN parasites,
of course, are the self same people that the lefties want to be taken
as the legitimate ‘moral’ authority:
“If Paul Volcker's preliminary report on Oil-for-Food dealt
with the organisation's unofficial interests, the UN's other report
of the week accurately captured their blithe insouciance to their
official one. As you may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have
been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of the arrogant
cowboy unilateralist Bush and have instead fallen under the care of
the Polly Toynbee-Clare Short-approved multilateral compassion set.
So, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern
over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were
deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the UN to set up a committee
to look into what's going on in Darfur. They've just reported back
that it's not genocide.
That's great news, isn't it? For as yet another Annan-appointed UN
committee boldly declared in December: "Genocide anywhere is
a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated."
So thank goodness this isn't genocide. Instead, it's just 70,000 corpses
who all happen to be from the same ethnic group - which means the
UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, and Polly and Clare
don't have to worry their pretty little heads about it." [Quoted
from telegraph.co.uk]
advertisement
