British Journalist/Former Leftist Dismantles Progressivism

Ten outstanding quotes/excerpts in a critique of the former fascist left by one of their own. Interesting how the most damning tales of Totalitarianism, Communism, Nazism, etc. are from those who survived it.

Award winning British journalist and best-selling author Melanie Phillips’Guardian Angel.” “Guardian Angel” tells the story of how Phillips started her career in British journalism on the Left in the late 1970s, only to become a stalwart Liberal culture warrior, as reflected in her positions on Islam, Israel, feminism, education, economics, environmentalism and a whole host of other issues that have earned her the wrath and contempt of European Leftists, particularly among media peers.

Guardian-Angel-e1392852883368.jpg


1.The “Chicago Way” (in London) ”I always believed in the duty of a journalist to uphold truth over lies, follow the evidence where it led and fight abuses of power wherever they were to be found. I gradually realised, however, that the left was not on the side of truth, reason, and justice, but instead promoted ideology, malice, and oppression. Rather than fighting the abuse of power, it embodied it.

Through demonising its enemies in this way, the left has undermined the possibility of finding common ground and all but destroyed rational discourse. This is because, as shown by its reaction to Lady Thatcher’s death, it substitutes insult and abuse for argument and reasoned disagreement.”

Through demonising its enemies…the left has…all but destroyed rational discourse


2.Leftist totalitarianism ”Moreover, while there were undoubtedly serious differences, the distinction between tankie totalitarians and the soft left served to mask the fact that the soft left was also totalitarian in its instincts. It may have recoiled from the tanks rolling into Hungary or Czechoslovakia, but it most certainly parked its own tanks on the lawns of British society. From there it proceeded to lay siege to the fortresses of Western culture, crushing all dissent beneath its tracks.”

3.The Overton Window ”More devastatingly still, by twisting the meaning of words such as liberal, compassion, justice and many others into their opposites, it has hijacked the centre-ground of politics. Left-wing ideology is now falsely said to constitute the moderate centre-ground, while the true centre-ground is now vilified as ‘the right’. This is as mind-bending as it is destructive, for it has introduced a fatal confusion into political debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Redefining the true middle ground of politics as ‘right-wing’ has served to besmirch and toxify the commitment to truth, reason, decency, and reality which characterises where most people happen to situate their thinking. At the same time, by loudly asserting that left-wing ideology is really ‘centrist’, the left has succeeded in presenting extremist, antisocial, or even nihilistic ideas as unarguably good, and all dissent is promptly vilified as ‘extreme’…For by asserting that it embodied the centre ground, what the left actually did was to hijack the centre ground and substitute its own extreme values — thus shifting Britain’s centre of political and moral gravity to the left, and besmirching as extremists those on the true centre ground. And something very similar has happened in the US, where language has been appropriated in order to engineer a seismic shift in attitudes, concealed by a mind-bending reversal of the meaning of words.”

4. The Middle Eastern double standard and Leftist racism ”In a leader conference one day, I asked why the Guardian appeared to be pursuing a double standard in its coverage of the Middle East. Why did it afford next-to-no coverage of Arab atrocities against other Arabs while devoting acres of space to attacking Israel for defending itself against terrorism? The answer I received from my colleagues that day stunned me. Of course there was a double standard, they said. How could there not be? The Third World did not subscribe to the same ethical beliefs as the West about the value of human life. The West therefore was not entitled to judge any mass killings in the Third World by its own standards. That would be racist.
The left actually abandons the oppressed of the world..all the time weeping crocodile tears for them


<snip>

6. The negligent welfare state ”The experience of those years also told me that something was going very wrong with the welfare state. It wasn’t just the lack of provision, which meant that the only care available for my mother from the local authority was a few hours a week with untrained carers who had been recruited off the street. It was also a callousness and indifference amongst the supposedly caring services. It was the hospital nurses who, when my mother broke her hip and through her feebleness was unable to move at all in her hospital bed, left her food and water unwrapped or out of reach and refused to make her comfortable; and the ward sister who, when I complained, told me with a straight face that my mother, who could barely put one foot in front of the other, had a short time before been ‘skipping round the ward’. I realised then that in the National Health Service, Britain’s sanctified temple of altruism, compassion, and decency, if you were old, feeble, and poor you just didn’t stand a chance.”

In the National Health Service…if you were old, feeble, and poor you just didn’t stand a chance.



The rest:

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/0...est-selling-british-author-who-left-the-left/

Bravo; great post and thank you for introducing this woman to me. I am surprised she could find a publisher.

The truth eventually surfaces and finds the light of day regardless of efforts to suppress it.
 
the current right in this country seeks to make kings out of the uber wealthy.

that is a really stupid philosophy in a democracy

Typed like the true socialist dunce that you are; meanwhile you want to crown politicians kings and turn everyone into dependent wards of the state.
 
So say's ye, the commie moron. As usual, no facts, no rational rebuttal to anything posted in opposition to leftist propaganda, just insults and illiterate accusations.

Unlike you I know all about this scum and its 'leftwing' past - which was about as long and convincing as yours. It is the standard scumbag career-course for publicists over here, unlike these in Arselickersland.
 
Last edited:
Unlike you I know all about this scum and its 'leftwing' past - which was about as long and convincing as yours. It is the standard scumbag career-course for publicists over here, unlike these in Areselickersland.


She wrote this article and it describes you to a tee.

Consequently, today’s militantly secular leftists display some astonishing similarities to both modern-day Islamists and medieval Christian fanatics. There is the same belief in the Revealed Truth – Revealed, that is, to them alone – from which no-one is permitted to dissent. Anyone who denies it is a heretic and has to be destroyed. Because the left believes it embodies virtue -- on account of its desire to perfect the world – anyone who dissents or opposes it is evil. Because it is Manichean, all who are not left-wing are right-wing (even if they are in fact liberal). So all who oppose the left are evil right-wingers who must be destroyed. That to leftists is a moral project.

They are therefore in effect a modern secular Inquisition. They are in the same mould as the religious and political totalitarian tyrannies of the past; they make in this respect common cause with the Islamists whose agenda poses a mortal threat to their own lives and liberties and most cherished beliefs; and they share the characteristic of a closed thought system which is totally impervious to reason and destroys all who challenge it with the monsters of history and Anders Behring Breivik.

That is surely why the left seized upon the Norway atrocity with demented joy and detonated a terrifying eruption of distortion and demonisation, irrationality, hatred and sheer blood-lust as it saw in the ravings of Anders Behring Breivik the mother and father of all smears which it could use to crush those who refuse to surrender to cultural totalitarianism. So those of us who fight for life, liberty and western civilisation against their enemies found ourselves – and by implication, the many millions who share these mainstream views – grotesquely damned as accessories to mass murder by those who actually cheer on religious fascists and genocidal madmen and who are set upon silencing all who resist.

The appalling actions of a Norwegian psychopath tell us next to nothing about our society. But the reaction to that atrocity tells us a great deal more.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/fanaticism-mass-murder-and-the-left
 
Here is an article she wrote in 2002, nothing's changed except for the worse.

Mark Twain once observed that there were three kinds of untruth: lies, damned lies and statistics. Now we should add a fourth category of whopper: the Home Office research study.

According to one such specimen published this week, no fewer than one in every 20 women aged between 16 and 59 in England and Wales has been raped, and one in ten has experienced some form of 'sexual victimisation'. Most of these assaults, said the study, had been committed not by strangers but by intimates - partners, former partners and acquaintances.

If true, this would indeed be an appalling state of affairs. Such huge numbers suffering serious sexual assault would mean that women were living in the shadow of an intolerable level of violence by men. After all, rape is one of the most serious crimes on the statute book because of the damage it does to a woman, both physical and psychological.

If the researchers were correct, one would therefore expect to hear an enormous amount of female distress and rage being expressed against these male 'intimates'. We would all of us know women friends or relatives who had been raped or sexually assaulted.

But we are not hearing this. We are instead shocked and amazed by these figures. The reason for our incomprehension is simple. What the researchers are telling us is not true. Indeed, this study is a load of manipulative, malevolent rubbish which must call the credibility of the Home Office research department seriously into question.

The devil here is in the definition. To most people, rape means sexual penetration against the victim's consent, which implies of necessity an act of violence or the threat of violence.

The Home Office researchers have muddied this concept. Instead of the legal definition of rape as 'penile penetration', the study defines it merely as 'forced to have sexual intercourse against your will'.

But the definition of 'forced against your will' is highly subjective. It can so easily translate into 'if you didn't want to', which can become meaningless. Although the study claims the word 'forced' implies an assault, it does nothing of the kind.

A woman might feel forced to have sex against her will, for example, if her lover tells her that otherwise he will leave here for another woman. Or she might be an unwilling participant because he is drunk, or hasn't had a bath for a week, or she doesn't love him.

The crucial point is that in such circumstances she is participating in sex even though she could choose not to do so. She is therefore not the victim of violence. By any fair-minded or common-sense definition, this is not rape. Yet the Home Office researchers appear to have included this kind of experience in their definition.

This already highly questionable exercise then becomes positively surreal. For believe it or not, the 'raped' women in the survey themselves don't think what has happened to them is rape. The study actually admits that, of the women who the researchers said had been raped, fewer than two thirds themselves described what had happened to them as rape. And fewer than three quarters of those who the researchers said had experienced sexual victimisation thought of this as a crime.

The reason for the discrepancy is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not busy playing sexual politics. These events were simply not rapes or sexual assaults, and the women concerned knew this perfectly well. That is because most of these incidents happened within sexual relationships with intimates, and the women involved appeared to accept what most people would think, that the issue of consent between lovers can be highly ambiguous.

Yet what these women themselves made of their experiences seems to be of no consequence to these Whitehall researchers, who of course know better than the victims what has happened to them. (So much for Home Office rhetoric about putting the victim first). They therefore drum up one self-serving reason after another to explain why sexual experiences which the women didn't think were rape were indeed rape.

Thus, they suggest that the women might not want to admit they have been raped because this is degrading and stigmatising; or they may not want to acknowledge that someone they like or love is a rapist. The idea that they knew perfectly well that the person they liked or loved was not a rapist does not occur to these researchers. The women are simply wrong.

This astonishing display of contempt arises because nothing as inconvenient as a few facts can get in the way of the assumption behind this study: that women are being raped, and men are getting away with it.

The ideological bias that is clearly driving this research is underlined by a crucial omission. The study says that most sexual violence is committed by partners. But - highly significantly - it omits to make a distinction between partners and spouses. It therefore does not tell us whether women suffer as much sexual assault from husbands as from boyfriends or cohabitants.

Yet all the available research suggests that the risk of sexual violence is negligible within marriage, and is hugely increased among cohabitants or more casual sexual partners. Marriage is actually the best physical protection against sexual violence.

But this study states instead that home life not safe. Here we get to the nasty core of this whole misleading exercise. For the underlying purpose is to demonise men and write them out of the domestic script altogether.

It is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power, it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence.

It has been exaggerating its incidence, omitting a vast amount of international evidence that women are equally aggressive as men and -- again - refusing to acknowledge the key fact that most domestic violence takes place between cohabiting and other unmarried couples.

The fact is that sexual mores have dramatically changed. Women now initiate casual sex; they carry condoms in their bags and drink, smoke, swear and often parody the worst caricature of macho culture.

As a result, the rules of the mating game have totally altered. The room for ambiguous signals has hugely expanded. That's why the courts are reluctant to convict men accused of rape.

But Whitehall's feminists cannot allow a little thing like injustice to interrupt their agenda. So the government is now hell bent on rigging the justice system itself to get men convicted of rape, by hook or by crook. To justify this, men have to be shown as perpetrating an intolerable level of violence upon women.

The result of this lie is not only to commit a calumny upon the male sex. It will also trivialise real rape when it occurs, make it harder to convict the guilty and betray the true needs of women to be protected against violence.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/lies...ht=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1
 
Unlike you I know all about this scum and its 'leftwing' past - which was about as long and convincing as yours. It is the standard scumbag career-course for publicists over here, unlike these in Arselickersland.

I never had a “leftwing” or “rightwing” past, I’m too fucking smart for that stupid shit. I am a born libertarian, (small l). I was a libertarian before there ever was a Libertarian Party.

Interesting and curious how you trash-mouth this woman, yet have never produced a dime’s worth of rational articulation in opposition to anything she’s said or written. Like all you leftist commies you’re always at a loss for rational words when your ideological folly is challenged. All you ever can come up with are insults and unproven accusations. You’re beady-eyed little green creeps that live under bridges.
 
Originally Posted by evince
that she was interested in the solutions the right offers mankind.

You see Ive seen those ideas and they are idiot cover stories for the wealthys greed


Well then post something of her's along with your rebuttal of it, I''ll wait.

STILL WAITING!

STILL WAITING!

STILL WAITING!

STILL WAITING!

STILL WAITING!
 
I never had a “leftwing” or “rightwing” past, I’m too fucking smart for that stupid shit. I am a born libertarian, (small l). I was a libertarian before there ever was a Libertarian Party.

Interesting and curious how you trash-mouth this woman, yet have never produced a dime’s worth of rational articulation in opposition to anything she’s said or written. Like all you leftist commies you’re always at a loss for rational words when your ideological folly is challenged. All you ever can come up with are insults and unproven accusations. You’re beady-eyed little green creeps that live under bridges.

Like you,obviously, she fitted in with whatever powers-that-be might reward her grovelling. I do not spend time 'arguing' with filth on lavatory walls either. In your country contemptible bullies can rant on as you do, but we still have some limited freedom, fortunately. If you need proof that the world is not flat you'd better ask Mrs Palin - don't waste reasonable people's time,clown!
 
Like you,obviously, she fitted in with whatever powers-that-be might reward her grovelling. I do not spend time 'arguing' with filth on lavatory walls either. In your country contemptible bullies can rant on as you do, but we still have some limited freedom, fortunately. If you need proof that the world is not flat you'd better ask Mrs Palin - don't waste reasonable people's time,clown!


Interesting and curious how you trash-mouth this woman, yet have never produced a dime’s worth of rational articulation in opposition to anything she’s said or written. Like all you leftist commies you’re always at a loss for rational words when your ideological folly is challenged. All you ever can come up with are insults and unproven accusations. You’re beady-eyed little green creeps that live under bridges.
 
Originally Posted by evince
that she was interested in the solutions the right offers mankind.

You see Ive seen those ideas and they are idiot cover stories for the wealthys greed

Well then post something of her's along with your rebuttal of it, I''ll wait.

STILL WAITING!

STILL WAITING!

STILL WAITING!

STILL WAITING!

STILL WAITING!
 
Melanie Phillips is about as 'left' as Mrs Palin's arse. Stop talking propagandist drivel!

and Hilary used to be a goldwater girl.


this person you highlight cant determine what a true fact is.

Of course shes a right leaning clown

She had a conversion from opportunist scum to opportunist scum, like so many phoney twicers since capitalism began. Are you really that thick, or are you merely pretending? Find me anything she ever wrote that shows personal conviction, left or right. Like the rest of you, she cares only for money.

Yes - she licked Murdoch's arse. You too can win that award, donkey-fancier.

Unlike you I know all about this scum and its 'leftwing' past - which was about as long and convincing as yours. It is the standard scumbag career-course for publicists over here, unlike these in Arselickersland.



Utterly amazing that these left-wingers come out with post after post and actually prove how correct Melanie Phillips is....
 
The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the RNC’s lawyers cited past decisions by the justices that ended long-standing court orders involving school desegregation and prison overcrowding. But the justices with no dissent dismissed the appeal in the case of RNC vs. DNC


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/news/la-pn-supreme-court-rnc-voter-fraud-20130114



why do you refuse these facts ?

And now....THE REAL THING


8 Democrats Arrested and/or Convicted of Voter Fraud

http://nationwidegazette.com/8-democrats-arrested-for-voter-fraud/
---------------------------------
12 Democrats charged with voter fraud in Georgia election

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/24/12-charged-with-voter-fraud-in-georgia-election/
--------------------------------
Democratic officials arrested for voter fraud in Indiana
Names, signatures faked in Indiana to put Obama, Clinton on primary ballot
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2498961563001/democratic-officials-arrested-for-voter-fraud-in-indiana/
-------------------------------
Fort Worth woman arrested in voter fraud case
By Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX) August 22, 2013
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/08/22/fort-worth-woman-arrested-in-voter-fraud-case/
-------------------------------
7 Democrats Arrested in New York for actual Voter Fraud via Absentee Ballots
Democrats arrested, charged and 4 plead guilty to actual voter fraud in New York via absentee ballots!
------------------------------
NAACP Executive Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Voting for Obama 10 Times in 2008
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.crafts.metalworking/B8Xe0hnJ-YI
 
Interesting and curious how you trash-mouth this woman, yet have never produced a dime’s worth of rational articulation in opposition to anything she’s said or written. Like all you leftist commies you’re always at a loss for rational words when your ideological folly is challenged. All you ever can come up with are insults and unproven accusations. You’re beady-eyed little green creeps that live under bridges.

Listen, McCarthy - you can bully people in your groveldom, but we can read and think still. As you know, your masters have convinced the mugs that education is elitist and that they should be governed by whichever of your masters' servants can best pretend to be someone they'd like having a massmuck American beer with. As you know, most of them (the servants) pretend to be illiterate and ignorant, but Mrs Palin really is those things, like you, and therefore unsuitable for political office.
 
Listen, McCarthy - you can bully people in your groveldom, but we can read and think still. As you know, your masters have convinced the mugs that education is elitist and that they should be governed by whichever of your masters' servants can best pretend to be someone they'd like having a massmuck American beer with. As you know, most of them (the servants) pretend to be illiterate and ignorant, but Mrs Palin really is those things, like you, and therefore unsuitable for political office.

What the hell is he going on about? I'm buggered if I know.
 
Last edited:
Listen, McCarthy - you can bully people in your groveldom, but we can read and think still.

You coulda fooled me commie! Your every post proves beyond any reasonable doubt that your ”thinking” abilities can’t proceed beyond fucking communist propaganda.

As you know, your masters have convinced the mugs that education is elitist and that they should be governed by whichever of your masters' servants can best pretend to be someone they'd like having a massmuck American beer with.

Unlike you commie I don’t have “masters.” I’m my own master! I don’t slobber over communist drivel or rightist and leftist propaganda.

As you know, most of them (the servants) pretend to be illiterate and ignorant, but Mrs Palin really is those things, like you, and therefore unsuitable for political office.

Actually commie, Sweet Sara is one of the more libertarian Republicans in the political spotlight. She is also smart enough to have been among the first to point out Obama-Care’s death panels and the fact that Mr. Snowden did the American people a service. Seems Sweet Sara hates BIG fucking intrusive government as much as you love it, commie.
 
Back
Top