Blog powered by Typepad

« I'm rattling my tin again! | Main | At last, Ed Hopper cracks Paris! »

Thursday, 13 December 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

He writes very well indeed. The themes remind me of Bill Vallicella's concept of "reverse hypocrisy": people not preaching what they practice. Liberals benefit from a system of capitalism, hard work and moral decency, yet don't have the grace to acknowledge these things in their ideology. Most liberal college professors actually practice these bourgeois virtues, but write as if the Ghetto or the third world offered a better blueprint.

All a bit of a confused mess but the question he fails to answer is "For who's benefit is the world to be run". Bethell seems to think the right has the answer, others claim the left, the reality is no-one knows, neither is ideal, neither the right nor the left can be trusted entirely.

The American obsession with religion seems curious in an advanced country - they should have grown out of it by now. An interesting irony that the Islamists and the Americans hang on to religion - probably for political reasons - it keeps both masses afraid.

Certainly some of the liberal intelligensia do themselves no favours - some make even my toes curl. But crackpots from the right and left provide amusement to rightists and leftists
alike, long may they continue.

Gentlemen, I remember my days in Singapore in which I was partly occupied keeping an eye on the activities of the 'Barisan Socialis', the local communist-front political party. I was always amused by the amount of time they spent worrying about exact etymology and nomenclature in their writings. I realise now how right they were. For example, who in America allowed socialists to seize the name 'liberals'? They are the exact opposite of 'liberal' and it is time the Right took them to task for word theft and renamed them 'Statists'. I think Bethell is entirely right to point out that the aim of the 'Statists' is to control everything - and I do mean everything - and they are now well on the way to achieving their aim. There is nothing "crackpot" about continually repeating that truth. The power of 'Political Correctness' is not confined to the pages of the NYT or the WaPo. It is already in schools, universities, professional associations, the workplace and so on and on. Nor is it (or, will it be) confined merely to stop people being rude to blacks - sooner rather than later it will extend to not being rude about 'Statists', ooops, sorry, Comrade, I mean 'liberals'!

The right naming of things is a good start and I don't think DD is a crackpot or anything like.

Socialist sounds a lot like Commy. I suppose PC has gone too far - but then people can still remember segregation. Injustice to Jews, Blacks and gay people still draws on a deep well of resentment. The downside is it prevents a few home truths being voiced.

A nation's goodies could be spread very thinly giving equally to the lazy and incompetent and the plain ordinary as to the focussed and powerful. Or a nations goodies could be handed mostly to the focussed, clever and powerful and not wasted on the idle and
stupid. For it is undeniable that the focussed, powerful and clever folks are the ones that move and shake the world, so why not the lion's share? Therein lies the democratic dilemma, just don't speak it loudly.

"I don't think DD is a crackpot" - alas, Roger, I think the jury is still out on that one!

Socialism is simply soft communism, in my view. However, today's Statists are different from both. They are determined to break up the main structures of civilised and truly liberal societies. They are well on their way to destroying both religion and the family. When those two pillars fall who will lay down the New Morality and who will 'administer' the *individuals* who, without the framework of family, find themselves alone? Why, the State, of course.

"the focussed, powerful and clever folks are the ones that move and shake the world"! "Focussed", certainly; "powerful", absolutely - in some cases; but "clever", well, yes, but only because 'clever' is never quite a compliment in English. Tony Blair was immensely 'clever', so you see what I mean!

"Tony Blair was immensely 'clever'": this may be the daftest single thing I've ever seen you say, Duffers. More exactly, Tony Blair not remotely 'clever'. When he was young, Brown was clever, sure: but Blair? Never.

Hello, DM, and to think I was actually missing you for a while! I used the word 'clever' in the sense I indicated above, that is, not entirely complimentary. If you prefer, substitute the word 'cunning'.

The comments to this entry are closed.