British Journalist/Former Leftist Dismantles Progressivism
- Thread starter Pointgold
- Start date
Your own master are you? Whose is that big fat arse you keep licking then? You are about as close to being your own master as any republican bumboy, which is nowhere. Why do you waste time pretending to be 'free', you grovelling slave? Nobody believes you, and you know it. I wonder, honestly, if you aren't even thicker than the blessed Palin. You certainly come over that way.
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.
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 discourse2.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/
The left demonized Margaret Thatcher--boo hoo; the right demonized Teddy Kennedy!
The soft left parked their tanks on British laws--what a load of fucking rubbish.
Sorry this was as far into this garbage heap as I could stand to go. If those are her first two revelations I can not even imagine how much more ridiculous this shit is going to get!
Maybe you better get your ass back to that Klan meeting! Your fellow Kluxers will probably swallow this shit, but you won't find any takers here except your fellow fools on the right!
And you all will drink anything!
Speaking of "insults and unproven accusations." This one seems right up there with those tanks the "soft left" parked on British lawns: "You’re beady-eyed little green creeps that live under bridges."
I'm sure you can prove this insult and accusation can't you? Please do!
What "tanks" is she talking about? Certainly no one from teh "soft left" parked any "tanks" anywhere and to compare anything that the "soft left" did in Britain to what happened in Czechoslovakia is complete lunacy! And after it parked those "tanks" on the lawns it laid "siege to the fortresses of Western culture, crushing all dissent beneath its tracks." Really? Bullshit! Britain has had more right wing governments since 1956 than most of us care to remember! And don't even talk about Bush's Iraq lap dog, and yes man, Tony Blair as a liberal, he was the worst of the worst.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I wonder if Teddy did anything to earn such scorn.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
If ever the phrase blubbering vagina was meant for anybody, it's you!
Here is another article for you to burst a blood vessel over, enjoy.
Shock news! Women are different from men
The chief operating officer of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, decided last week to use the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos to make some observations about women in the workplace. She said that companies should be able to ask women employees whether they intend to have children. Crumbs. Did she really say that? It is, of course, no more than basic common sense to say that if a woman has children, this will very likely affect her attitude to work. At the very least, it surely merits a discussion with her employer.
But such is the equality madness, so absolute the prohibition against speaking about such matters and so great the opprobrium directed at anyone who does, that when someone actually says the blindingly obvious like this it comes as a shock. Indeed, Ms Sandberg revealed that her firm’s own lawyer had been nervous about her suggesting that women employees might be different from men. Heaven forbid! In fact, most of the rest of her message was militantly feminist — attacking gender stereotypes, criticising women for not being more assertive at work and urging them not to downgrade their ambitions just because they had children. Nevertheless, she also believes that employers and female employees should be open with each other about how such women will juggle work and family — because women have different priorities in life from men.
You may find these differences praiseworthy or, as Ms Sandberg clearly does, most regrettable — but that’s just how it is. Yet this patently obvious fact is unsayable because of the shibboleth that women behave in exactly the same way as men and therefore have to be treated in an identical manner. The latest example of this implacably unisex approach is the possibility that Britain may follow the example of the U.S., which has just decided to reverse its ban on women soldiers serving in combat units. Opinion about the wisdom of this move is divided, not least among women soldiers themselves. Some believe there should be no such bar, on the grounds that women soldiers are both physically and emotionally as capable of killing the enemy as their male colleagues. But others say there are significant drawbacks. First, women are simply not as strong as men. One female soldier has been reported as saying that she just could not envisage a woman joining the Parachute Regiment, because ‘you need to be able to carry 100lb of kit and still kill the enemy’. In addition, she and others believe that women lack the ‘killer instinct’ to be properly effective in battle, and would also weigh down the male soldiers alongside them since men’s instinct is to protect women from harm.
Personally, I don’t know who is right in this argument. Experience in those countries which allow women to serve in combat units appears to have been mixed, and there are clearly serious doubts about whether such a move would hamper military effectiveness in a combat zone. What is alarming, however, is that proper consideration of such concerns appears to be impossible — because they are simply trumped and rendered moot by the unchallengeable belief that women have to be treated in every walk of life in exactly the same way as men. This is based on the similarly incontestable belief that if there is anything they are unable to do, this is proof positive of discrimination. But this is simply false. Denying women opportunities on the basis of true prejudice is clearly wrong, and regrettably still happens. But much of what is called ‘discrimination’ is due to women’s own choices. For example, women may hit the so-called ‘glass ceiling’ at work because, even in full-time employment, they often choose not to go for promotion or decide to work fewer hours than their male colleagues on account of their other priorities, such as caring for young children.
Yet women who own businesses earn nearly 17 per cent more than men in the same position — because they are working on their own terms, which are different from those of men.
Modern feminism presents women as passive victims of circumstance, unable to influence their own destiny. Not only is this nonsense, but it infantilises women by denying them any responsibility for what happens to them. This absurdity has been on display in the past few days over perfectly sensible remarks about what women need to do to help protect themselves against attack. Last week, the actress Joanna Lumley advised women: ‘Don’t be sick in the gutter at midnight in a silly dress with no money to get a taxi home because somebody will take advantage of you — either rape you, or they’ll knock you on the head or they’ll rob you.’ For such advice — which any caring parent might give their daughter — she was promptly torn apart for ‘misogyny’, ‘reactionary ideals of femininity’ and ‘toxic language’.
A Tory MP, Richard Graham, supported her by saying that women were putting themselves at risk of rape if they staggered about at night drunk and clad in short skirts and high heels.
Apoplectic women’s groups then accused the hapless Graham of reallocating blame from rapists to their victims. But he did nothing of the kind. All the poor man said was that if women were drunk and wore short skirts and high heels, they couldn’t run away from their attackers fast enough. Some of his accusers were beyond parody. According to Jo Wood, a trustee of Rape Crisis England and Wales, women should bear no responsibility for any attack on them even if they were off their face with alcohol and ‘lying naked on a bench’. This is tantamount to claiming that if someone wanders across a motorway for a dare, they should bear no responsibility whatsoever if they get run over. Is it surprising, therefore, that women who have battled through real obstacles in their lives tend to view modern feminism with contempt?
Mary Berry, star of BBC TV’s The Great British Bake-Off, is a no-nonsense career woman who overcame polio and went back to work a few weeks after giving birth to each of her three children. Yet she says she is ‘stunned’ that women now get a year off after having a baby and don’t even have to tell their employers whether they are coming back or not — which makes it impossible for small firms to cope. No wonder she thinks feminism is a dirty word and wants nothing to do with ‘women’s rights’. Women’s equality surely means equal access on a level playing field. It does not mean identical treatment. Yet that’s what it’s become. The ‘unisex’ view of men and women, however, is simply false. The truth is that women have different characteristics, needs and priorities in life from men. Forcing them into the same mould as men means those differences cannot be accommodated but are instead squashed out of existence.
The result is that women themselves find life more difficult, not less.
Turning themselves into ‘ladettes’, they make themselves vulnerable to abuse or attack — and end up in their 30s wondering why they haven’t found a nice chap with whom to settle down.
Or they run themselves ragged trying to combine work with looking after small children — not because their menfolk aren’t pulling their weight at home, but because they themselves can’t bear to play second fiddle in caring for their children. Treating women as victims has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need less feminism and more realism if we are to stop infantilising half the human race — and thus finally give women real equality.
http://melaniephillips.com/infantilising-women-is-not-true-equality
Last edited:
Yes, he was Catholic.
And here I thought he was a Dishonest drunk Liberal who let a woman drown in a car he ran off the road.
Go fuck yourself washer woman!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yeah, but she doesn't count, so it's okay.
Margaret Thatcher certainly did!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Which means it will still be only 90% of the number of times that Desh has posted and reposted her own repetitive comment.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Oh dear, where are all your fine words now?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine...
Robo
Verified User
You and iolo are living proof, nothing else is necessary commie.
Robo
Verified User
I'm not a Republican numb-nuts. Maybe one day you'll actually name names of those you think are my masters, huh commie? Oh! That's right you're always at a loss for rational argument your only talent is laughable insulting accusations and commie drivel.
