Liberalism

They wouldn’t exactly make fun of Hilary would they?

We all know the mainstream media are unashamedly left wing and liberal. Gabriel Hays from MRC Newsbusters reports on just how bad the progressive bias actually is. quote.

Quote:Entertainment TV is far worse than news when it comes to progressive bias and hatred for conservative people and views. A cross section of nightly programming on major networks, cable TV or popular streaming services is loaded with anti-conservative, anti-Trump propaganda. January features at least 33 separate entertainment programs that attack conservative values and/or President Donald Trump while promoting a hardcore progressive agenda.End of quote.

Read more »
Tagged:

Where did we go wrong?

…asks Whaleoil stalwart George:

I would imagine that some of us older folk have our moments when we long for “the good old days”. On reflection, they weren’t really that good, at least through my experience.

I only had a radio to entertain me and it only provided me with two highlights, “Life with Dexter” and “Money or the Bag.” Off shore sport was listened to on a short wave frequency and was often a very frustrating experience. Read more »

Why one woman voted for Trump instead of Hillary

Hillary and her supporters assumed that the women’s vote belonged to her because she had a vagina which is a very sexist assumption. They assumed that American women would want the glass ceiling broken so badly that they would vote for a woman no matter what the content of her character was.They assumed that all women were pro-abortion and that they didn’t care about things like national security or national debt .They thought that American women would believe that the only way to protect the LGBT community and to take care of the black community and minorities was to vote democrat.

…I?m sick and tired of it. I?m sick and tired of these uninformed jackholes telling me that I?m racist, sexist, Islamophobic and homophobic.?They have no basis for those claims. They?re consumed by their emotions. ?Do they?honestly believe Hillary Clinton lost solely because she?s a woman? It?couldn?t?possibly have anything with her being a pathological liar who?s spent her entire life pursuing political power? It had nothing?to do with the fact that America?s?not satisfied with her vision for America? an America with open borders, higher taxes and?more bureaucratic scumbags in D.C. telling us?how to run our lives?

We?re not racist. We?re not sexist. We want people to come into this country legally. That?s not racist.?Progressive leadership in the big, urban cities hasn?t pulled the black community out of poverty. It?s worsened it. Liberalism has failed them. We acknowledge that. We want them to prosper. That?s not racist.?And as for being sexist? All issues are women?s issues. I have no idea why liberals continue to separate them. Do they really believe we only care about vaginas, boobs and killing our offspring? Liberals assumed we (women) would vote for Hillary based on those reasons alone. THAT?S sexist, if you ask me. Women care about the economy. We care about national security. We care about the?almost $20 trillion national debt. We care about the erosion of our freedoms. We care about the future of the Supreme Court. The list goes on and on and on.

Read more »

A Left Wing view of the problems with multiculturalism in Europe

screen-shot-2016-09-25-at-9-53-06-am

The author of the book The Trojan Horse: A Leftist Critique of Multiculturalism in the West points out that in their eagerness to avoid accusations of racism, left-leaning liberals have abandoned traditionally progressive liberal principles. He points out that the pluralist multiculturalism that the UN has forced onto?Sweden, and other European states is just as fixated on race as the racists they condemn. He also points out that multiculturalism ignores the rights of dissenting minorities within the religious and ethnic groups as they view them as one homogenous group.

Mainstream self-styled ?progressives? tend to think of multiculturalism and diversity as inherently good things ? ideas that only the racist and bigoted would contest. Which is why Swedish sociologist Goran Adamson?s new book, The Trojan Horse: A Leftist Critique of Multiculturalism in the West, is such a welcome intervention. It provides a definitive critique of the ideology of diversity, and it does so from a progressive perspective. In particular, it shows how reason, freedom and individuality ? the cornerstones of democracy and civil rights ? are being undermined by the ideology of multiculturalism

…he was commissioned by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to determine the best methods for increasing political participation among immigrant groups in Europe.

…he discovered that the separate-but-equal model of a pluralist, multicultural society was less effective at encouraging political participation among immigrant groups

…Adamson?s report, Immigrants and Political Participation, was quickly dismissed, even by those who commissioned it.

…Adamson argues that the methods and theories of multiculturalists are similar to those of right-wing extremists: both want to force reality to conform to their worldview, rather than respond to it as it really is.

There are other parallels between multiculturalism and old-fashioned racial thinking. For instance, as Adamson points out, multicultural ideology makes a fetish, like the racial theories of yore, of ethnic diversity. What matters is not, as Martin Luther King believed, the content of one?s character, but the colour of one?s skin.

…In this sense, multiculturalism is just as fixated on race as the racist thought of the past.

Read more »

No Enemy to the right is an interesting concept

Key messages from the video are:

Liberalism is a disease.

The cure is traditionalism and nationalism.

There is no time for in fighting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNeSPeyA5U8

The bully pulpit is destroying liberalism and freedom of speech

Jonathan Chait explains why political correctness and the bully pulpit of demanding silence from those whose ideas you oppose is creating a reign of terror on freedom of speech, and the worst offenders are those who should know better.

The p.c. style of politics has one serious, possibly fatal drawback: It is exhausting. Claims of victimhood that are useful within the left-wing subculture may alienate much of America. The movement?s dour puritanism can move people to outrage, but it may prove ill suited to the hopeful mood required of mass politics. Nor does it bode well for the movement?s longevity that many of its allies are worn out. ?It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,? confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. ?There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I?m far from alone in feeling that it?s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.? Goldberg wrote recently about people ?who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in [online feminism] ? not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.? Former Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay told her, ?Everyone is so scared to speak right now.?

That the new political correctness has bludgeoned even many of its own supporters into despondent silence is a triumph, but one of limited use. Politics in a democracy is still based on getting people to agree with you, not making them afraid to disagree. The historical record of political movements that sought to expand freedom for the oppressed by eliminating it for their enemies is dismal. The historical record of American liberalism, which has extended social freedoms to blacks, Jews, gays, and women, is glorious. And that glory rests in its confidence in the ultimate power of reason, not coercion, to triumph.

Read more »

How liberals have ‘morphed from noble liberators to little nannies’

The left-wing used to be about freedom of speech, freedom of expression and liberal ideas.

They have increasingly become totalitarian which is to be expected considering the ideologies they have sprung from.

Constantly wanting to control our speech, our thoughts and ideas and what we eat and drink.

Alex Wickham at Breitbart explains:

?The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy?. So said H.L. Mencken of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Puritanism; the tyrannical do-gooders of the temperance movement, authoritarians pushing their Victorian values on ?sinners? across the Atlantic.

Whether it was booze, sex, drugs or whatever form of permissiveness they thought was destroying western civilization from within, the Puritans of the last hundred years have been conservatives. Reactionary, traditional to the point of totalitarian, these were people who did not like change and would make sure you knew it. Post-war, they detested liberals, these new, amoral, sandal-wearing, pot-smoking, freedom-loving hippies. Typified by the social conservatism of Mary Whitehouse, hectoring the public with their controlling views, the Puritans were not on the side of liberty.

Today, Puritanism has changed. It is still not on the side of liberty. It is still hectoring, controlling, freedom-hating and totalitarian. It is still haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. The difference is the New Puritans are not conservatives, they are liberals. Ironic and perverse given the pro-freedom, anti-authoritarian aspirations of their purported ideology, the mantle of Puritanism has been assumed by so-called liberals, by so-called progressives.

Read more »

The pathological loathing of freedom of speech

There is a great quote from James Delingpole which is oh so relevant to our current political debate in New Zealand. It applies clearly to people like Bomber Bradbury and to the liberal left in general as we have seen with reactions to Paul Henry, Alasdair Thompson, the Macsyna King Book, Don Brach and the Vote for Change campaign.

What is it about the liberal-left and its pathological loathing of freedom of speech and open debate? And why, instead of engaging in ideas ? supported by facts ? must it instead so invariably resort to this crude, smear technique whereby its opponents must forever be dismissed as morally compromised?

Actually, I ask these questions purely rhetorically because I know the answer already. To be on the liberal-left is not to trade in logic or reason or evidence-based argument. Essentially, it is about parading your own moral and socio-political virtue by being seen to express the ?right? thoughts on any given subject ? and by damning anyone who disagrees with you as a racist/homophobe/LittleEnglander/denier/fill-in-appropriate-noun-here.

Nothing disgusts me more than attempt to shut down?political?or any other discourse just because someone said something offensive. I find most things that socialists say offensive but rather than shutting them down I actually want them to speak that which they think so more people can see their foolish ideas.

I welcome idiots like Kyle Chapman, and Hone Harawira and Winston peters spouting their?rubbish. They should be mocked not silenced. One of the more hateful developments after nine years of Clarkism was the shouting down of those who opposed her and her government. When the Exclusive Brethren dared to spend their own money telling the truth about the Greens labour and their allies passed a law to attempt to silence them, after demonising them and continuing to demonise them for using their democratic human right of freedom of speech.

Bomber talks of hateful people and hateful ideas and then goes on to demonise people for what he?perceives?as hate speech without realising that he?practices?a more hateful form of politics, he?practices?censorship. Trying to silence your foe through fear, intimidation and demonsiation is hateful, and it is that which much be opposed strongly.

The?liberal?left fear a contest of ideas that is why people like Bomber try to shut down debate, and the contest. They are fearful cowards. Long may they quake in fear of a contest of ideas.

Pedobear Power and his tame churnalist

Simon Power - Pedobear Justice MinisterI used to have some respect for Colin James. Now I have nothing but contempt for the sad little man. The reason is because Google has revealed an uncanny coincidence that Colin James seems to run stories for and on behalf of Simon “Pedobear” Power.

In fact the articles are sick inducing and provide proof positive that Pedobear Power, the friendly politician of pedophiles and criminals should not only and in his man card but also his National party credentials. The man is a bleeding heart pinko sooky liberal and a disgrace that he ever got selected as a National party candidate in the first place.

Back in February, Colin James wrote a puff piece on Pedobear Power and how he is the savour of our justice system. It is buckets full of vomit bad.

In the end laws get changed because politicians in parties change them (judges have a hand, too, at times). The best citizens can expect is that politicians respond.

Hence Power’s interest in what he calls the legal system, which he thinks is too much the legal priesthood’s preserve.

Citizens can directly influence the administration of the law only by becoming part of that priesthood themselves. Some are dragooned on to a jury where judges and lawyers belittle them by deciding what evidence they can hear and what of the evidence they do hear they are allowed to take seriously.

That legal system is not for ordinary folk.

Power, a lawyer by training but with a leavening of academic politics, has set out to make some changes. (Though not for the belittled juries.)

He has pushed victims’ rights on to courts’ agendas, marginalised when criminal law muscled into tort law, and procedural changes to the way sexual violence cases are treated in court. The aim is better justice — or just some justice. The law and justice do not always coincide.

Yes Simon “Pedobear” Power’s solution for victim’s rights is actually protecting the rights of pedophiles and criminals from real justice. He doesn’t care about victims int eh traditional sense, he cares about ‘victims‘ that are actually criminals ‘let down by society’. And he cares for the pockets of his lawyer mates.

His office has also been sitting on the report from the Law Commission about name Suppression with nary a peep out of him despite the report being written by fellow judicial, liberal, pinko, meddler Geoffrey Palmer. Instead of following what the public wants Palmer and Pedobear claim that the solution to the name suppression issue is tougher penalties for people breaking name suppression. Reality would actually beg to differ. The problem with name suppression is that liberal judges and lawyers like Palmer and Pedobear ignore the wishes of real victims and continue to hide pedo teachers, lawyers, sports stars and the like from actually facing up to their despicable crimes.

They prefer the burqa of justice, name suppression, to veil the ugly, heinous criminals when publicity and vitriol should instead be used. Today is no different. Colin James has again enabled the Pedobear and today’s Dompost article (not online) is even more sick inducing.

Ready your sick bags.

SIMON POWER wants to reclaim the justice system for the people. He has made a start. He reckons it will take him another two to three years. He will outline his next steps in a speech to the law profession and academics at Otago University this month (planned for Wednesday but postponed because the funeral of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell, a constituent, is that day). The law industry is unlikely to rush to congratulate him.

The Government is known more for its law-and-order hard line. Last month Corrections Minister Judith Collins celebrated the economic value of the new South Auckland prison: $1.2 billion over 30 years. Social and human defeat is trumpeted as economic victory. And just in time: the construction sector is in a parlous state.

Oh the old Judith bad, Pedobear good lines. Simon Power must have been taking a shellacking in caucus and cabinet recently, so much so that he has resorted to little whispering campaigns and pet churnalists writing puff pieces. Pedobear Power is a legend in his own mind and those of his captured and sycophantic staff who have so far spectacularly failed to deliver anything and had to leave it to the only minister who has achieved real successes to deliver in his portfolio. Pedobear is too busy protecting pedophiles and criminals to implement real law changes, instead he focusing on denying accessible legal support to the poor and broken of South Auckland in order to protect the revenue streams of the high street lawyers who like to think they know best.

The Justice Wilson email saga shows clearly just how out to lunch most of these liberal elite are. It is no surprise then for me to see that in amongst those email conversations is a link to my own cases before the courts on page 22. Does this saga and the revelations that our legal fraternity are in reality a cosy little club and the fact that I named one of the members of this little club mean that my case and Pedobear’s reluctance to address the name suppression issue show there is some sort of nudge-nudge-wink-wink carry-on involved. That could be just craziness on my part, but the dots have been joining for some time. Right enough with the conspiracy theories, and back to Simon Power Colin James’ article about our heroic but little understood justice minister (I used little letters on purpose, he doesn’t deserve capitals).

Mr Power has gone along but, as a liberal, he has a stronger interest in reform than repression. He wants courts to be more expeditious and more solicitous of victims and witnesses. He has perturbed and angered practitioners whose reverence for tradition and precedence favours incremental change as a cornerstone. Critics – uncommonly articulate, given their trade – point to 40-year-old Mr Power’s youth and mere five years in legal practice.

Actually, youth and legal training have emboldened him. Non-lawyer justice ministers can be bamboozled by the trade.

That couple of paragraphs was actually Colin James fellating Simon Power. Pedobear Power is just bamboozled and enjoying watching Colin James clean muck out of his beard.

His focus is now on three areas. One is more flexible processes, including an inquisitorial approach, to complement the greater flexibility courts have allowed in dealing with young offenders and in family cases. Mr Power wants that flexibility applied to other “stakeholders”, such as victims and witnesses (often forced to relive nasty experiences by heavy-hitting defence lawyers) and jurors.

This is all well and good, but now add in the debacle the Wilson case and resulting emails have shown our Justice system to be and now Simon Power’s youthful enthusiasm for reforming the courts down liberal lines just looks like a disaster of his own making. Anyone who uses the word “stake-holders” needs fifty lashes on the pee-pee with a wet shoelace anyhow, just to teach them. The real stake-holders (to use civil servant speak) are the public of New Zealand who have been let down for fifty years by wet, sopping, pinko liberals like Simon Power. If fifty years of cuddling criminals hasn’t shown us that it doesn’t work then perhaps a few weeks in a cell with some of these ‘mis-understood individuals’ might make Pedobear understand a bit better.

Mr Power is not just liberal. He is also a family man, with two young children. When he talks of the courts belonging to the people, children are very much part of his people. This is a young man talking. Venerable judges take note.

Colin James - Pedobear Seal of Approval

Colin James - Pedobear Seal of Approval

This makes it even more perplexing, that as a father, he refuses to enact a NZ version of Megan’s law or Sarah’s law, instead preferring the lines and excuses of the liberals. If children are very much part of his people then why not action on naming and shaming pedos? Why not action on removing the burqa of name suppression from our justice system and why not action putting criminals in jail for a long time so that they can’t hurt children anymore?

I’ll tell you why not, because Simon Power is all pin-stripes and bullshit, he wakes every morning and stands in front of the mirror and says to himself “F*ck I’m Good, Just Ask Me”.

Colin James can now also sport the pedobear stamp of approval after those sick inducing liberal cry pieces on behalf of a protector of pedophiles.

×