Thursday 30 May 2013

Tweet Like a Lefty

There is a meme on Twitter under the hashtag #tweetlikealefty (or sometimes #leftylogic) in which people distil into less than 140 characters the essence, nay the very quintessence of left-wing lunacy of the two plus two equals five variety. For the left, belief is far more important than observable truth and anyway, if you tell yourself it is true it becomes the truth, doesn't it? The political equivalent of closing your eyes tight and wishing very hard.

To give you a flavour of how the delusions of the left are seen by people with a sense of humour – something denied the hard left, unless they are cracking Thatcher jokes - here are a few I stole from my screen this morning:

If in doubt, ban it, delete it, censor it.

If you're winning the argument and backing your opinion up with hard facts, I can shout racist and then I win.

I support freedom of speech, but some opinions shouldn’t be tolerated in our society.

Tax TaxTax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax!

We will stand up for the working man, by forcibly taking his wages to fund those who can't be bothered.

Private schools should be abolished; as soon as my children have finished theirs.

You get the idea. My contribution to the cause this morning was, “Your opinion is that of a closed mind. My intransigence despite the facts is debate.”

I have firmly held views, why shouldn't I? After all, I've been around for a while now. And in that time, in the face of evidence, I have been persuaded to alter some of them and discard others. I like to believe – as we all do - that my opinions are the result of experience, enquiry and examination and are therefore pragmatic and not sentimental. But I have seen over the years how leaders have been able to subvert human belief by that simple act of propaganda - repetition. Say a palpable untruth often enough and it becomes dull and inoffensive. Carry on saying it and you create a grudging acceptance that it may be a valid point of view and then it is but one small step to setting it in stone as an immutable truth.

A new buzzword for the bewildered white minority is the Arabic word “Taqiyya” which describes a systematic concealing of the truth of Islam, said to have originated to avoid persecution but nevertheless now meant in a pejorative sense. In the nineteen eighties I encountered lies every day in Libya, or rather, broken promises. “Mumkin bukra inshallah” was a casual lie concealing the real truth which was, “Maybe tomorrow if I remember and if I can be bothered.”

It is of course not confined to the Arab world.  Spain has its “maƱana” and Cornwall has its “dreckly” but both come served with a knowing twinkle and sense of self-deprecation and certainly with no malice aforethought. Taqiyya is a tad more sinister and the Left has its very own form of taqiyya which is to adopt a stance and hold firmly to it regardless of the facts, or of anybody else’s freedom of speech, then in the face of unassailable logical defeat to simply ignore the argument and resort to name-calling.
You will learn to love Big Brother

If you don’t believe what they believe you are wrong. If you don't believe what they believe you are a kaffir. And yes, I use the anglicised version of that Arabic word precisely because some find it offensive. I guess that makes me a racist.


  1. An excellent blog entry Sir, as always.

    Another example of this would be the left's insistence that a Sociopathic Child-Killing Paedophile should be reformed and sent back into society with a new identity. He became a project for the left.

    He subsequently re-offended, blew his multi-million pound identity apart, and was re-arrested desperately trying to hide the evidence that he had been actively searching and downloading the hardest pornographic images of child rape underneath the noses of the probation and social services. In doing so, he comfirmed everything that the right said he would do before his release.

    He was released from Redbank young offenders institution posing 'no danger to society'. He was allowed to work in direct contact with children. No warnings were issued to parents in the area in which he was housed.

    Following his reincarceration his next parole hearing comes up shortly, you may have seen that Denise and Ralph Bulger are using all their efforts to keep Jon Venables locked up so that they can try to protect other children from him. I admire their persistence.

    He will undoubtedly be released though, with a new multi-million pound identity. He will also undoubtedly re-offend because he is a sociopath that has paedophilic urges. He's well versed with telling psychiatrists exactly what they need to know, he's been talking to them since he was 10.

    Now look at the above, a case presented simply and honestly, any reasonable person doesn't need to know any further facts to say that this man should be incarcerated forever.

    Then look at the left, the scourge of society, the disease that still thinks people like this can be reformed to the detriment of their victims. No doubt, they'll go quiet again for a bit when another child dies.

    I'll leave you with one comment under an article in the Mail regarding his imminent parole hearing:

    'He needs treatment and obviously support as he can't cope with day to day life - if he's been under the care of doctors and guidance/supervision is in place then I think he has to be given a chance at life. He was a child when the murder happened and we should be better than a lynch mob.'

    How utterly disgusting.

    1. Did you see the ridiculous posturing of the convicted murderer 'Ben' Gunn the last two evenings on Twitter,on my timeline? (he goes under @prisonerben although @sixfeetunder might be more appropriate.) Several others came to his support but all they had was a 'conviction' that judicial killing was ALWAYS wrong and would brook no dissent from that view. I happen to have a different view and believe that for certain crimes, certain individuals it may be the kindest option all round. But of course MY opinion must not be heard. It didn't take very long for the passive-aggressive insults to pop up.

      Even after I ignored him on Tuesday night he couldn't help himself. I'd say that sort of repetitive behaviour is indicative of some mental derangement.

    2. @ Chris Fleming, to insert the diagnosis "sociopath" into your comment and then claim its fair and just is a reach....Its a clinical diagnosis, one never made. Insist the guy should never be released, fine, but not on the basis of "sociopath".

      The Thompson and Venables saga interests me particularly because they raise the question - can such kids be "repaired" and reclaimed by society as decent human beings? And, if so, should they be? For whilst 10 year olds know right from wrong, this is a far cry from having a full appreciation of consequences.

      To what purpose is locking them up forever intended?

    3. Beating an 11 year old boy over the head with a chair leg until half of his skull is missing is definitely mental derangement and no, I wouldn't have let him out of jail. I've read his blog and researched his background and his crime, and if murdering someone isn't bad enough, he now campaigns for other dangerous people to get the opportunity to re-offend.

      He disgusts me.

      Block him from your Twitter because frankly, he is a very dangerous individual. People get put under all kinds of pressure in their lives, parents die, my Wife's Father died in front of her when she was young. She didn't subsequently go around beating people to death with a chair leg for no apparent reason whatsoever.

      Let's all reflect for a moment what the 11 year old boy was feeling as his hands were being smashed to pieces trying to protect the repeated blows to his skull, before his life was extinguished forever.

    4. You make a whole list of accusations there - care to substantiate any of them??? My crime is public knowledge - I discuss it on my blog and my attitudes of what I did 32 years ago. I was not deranged - else I would not have been on trial. I pleaded guilty. I am well aware of the horror I inflicted.

      But to claim I am dangerous, to claim I campaign for dangerous people to be released to reoffend are both either hyperbole, deliberate lies, or plain libel.

      Feel free to be disgusted by me. But do so on the proper basis and not your own misperceptions and false assertions.

  2. Actually, I tried to explore your views, which I believe are sincere (as opposed to mindless provocation). You were not inclined to debate, which is a pity. Hav9ing the State kill people is a moral, legal and practical morass of complexity and, I think, killing people is a view that requires some discussion and challenge.

    I do believe that capital punishment is wrong. I accept your view that "the sanctity of life" is a very dodgy concept, with society happily accepting death in many circumstances. I take a stricter view, but ho hum.

    So, limiting the discussion to State executions and not life in general, I fail to see what useful outcome flows from capital punishment. It does not deter. It does not raise the already dead. And it adds to the sum of human misery following a crime.

    These are the issues I dearly love to discuss. You chose not to; fine, but it is only reasonable that if you share these views in a public forum, expect them to be challenged. I do, and when engaged try to discuss the issues.

    In your blogpost, I get the impression that you believe that murderers ran amok with regularity and execution is a sensible social prophylactic. Which is why I asked whether you knew the reoffending rate for murderers. I am assuming that an argument based in part on wrong information may be open to debate and change. I was wrong.

    1. "In your blogpost, I get the impression that you believe that murderers ran amok with regularity and execution is a sensible social prophylactic."

      Then you read it with the intention of discovering that viewpoint, which I do not hold.

      Prophylactic? Yes, in some cases, but not as effective as perhaps would be desirable. But judicial termination is a sensible, pragmatic and appropriate termination of the human rights of one who has set out to deny those rights to others. It has nothing to do with barbarity.

      I didn't engage with you on Twitter for the simple reason that you resorted very early to the ad hominem position that my character - which you assumed to know so well - was that of a bloodthirsty savage. That is not the stance of somebody who would debate, but of somebody who has already decided that the opposite view could not be held by somebody worthy of debate.

      Well done. Your jeering made my point very clearly.

    2. I read yopur blogp[ost with no intention to misread anything. It was the impression you left, though clearly that wasn't what you intended.

      It is your assertion that "judicial termination is a sensible, pragmatic and appropriate termination of the human rights of one who has set out to deny those rights to others" that interests me, because I cannot discern your underlaying argument. Why is it sensible, pragmatic, etc?

      You may suspect that I am merely attempting to bait you, but I am not. You hold a genuine view and you assert it. It is what your assertions are based upon that I am trying to uncover.

      If you don't want a genuine debate with me, just say so and I shall vacate your timeline. I only intervened initially because you post a view in a public forum and I assumed you would be interested in debate.

    3. You assumed, incorrectly, that anybody gives a fuck what you think.

    4. "You assumed, incorrectly, that anybody gives a fuck what you think."

      Actually, I assumed no such thing, but you just tweeted like a lefty!