leftwing myths #1 – the myth of Big Business

One of the most pervasive myths spread by the Left is that conservatives can rely on the unstinting support of those wicked capitalists in Big Business.

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Big Government and Big Business are not enemies. The hallmark of our present system is an unholy, corrupt and corrupting alliance between government and business.

The last thing Big Business wants is a true free market. That means competition, and risk. Big Business relies on government to protect it from such horrors. The price they pay is an insane degree of regulation but it’s worth it in order to have predictability. And excessive regulation hurts small businesses far more than it hurts big businesses, so in fact it benefits big corporations by wiping our competition from smaller firms.

There’s an even bigger payoff for big business – their alliance with government means they can always rely on being bailed out if things go wrong.

It’s in the interests of Big Business to have Big Government, and it’s also in their interests to have governments in office that are committed to perpetuating this system. In other words, governments of the Left. Which is why, in western countries, we no longer have true conservative parties. Our so-called conservative parties are afraid to rock the boat by pursuing genuinely conservative policies – that would spell the end of any prospect of support from the big end of town.

That’s also why so many large corporations are prepared to support and to promote truly insane climate change policies – those policies mean lots of taxpayers’ money will be coming their way if they can just pretend to be sufficiently green. The fact that these policies are unnecessary and wouldn’t work anyway is irrelevant because it’s the taxpayer who will pick up the tab.

When President Eisenhower in his speech in 1961 warned of the peril of the military-industrial complex he should have been warning of the much greater dangers of the government-industrial complex.

Advertisements

why leftists want to rewrite history

One of the reasons that leftists are so keen on rewriting history is that history is so very embarrassing to them.

One of the many embarrassing facts of history is that socialists in the first half of the 20th century were extremely enthusiastic about eugenics and racial purity. Prominent socialists like H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw were fanatically pro-eugenics. Most of the leftist enthusiasm for birth control was motivated by racism and by fear of the pollution of society by the “unfit.”

In the US it was progressives who were most anxious to introduce eugenics legislation.

Left-liberals in the US like to forget that segregation and the Jim Crow laws were supported by the Democratic Party, and that most of the early efforts to introduce civil rights legislation were made by Republicans.

In Australia the Left tries very hard to forget that the Labor Party was incredibly keen on the White Australia Policy. It was a Labor Immigration Minister (and later Labor leader), Arthur Calwell, who made the famous remark that, “Two wongs don’t make a white.”

The history of leftist politics sheds interesting light on modern liberals’ obsession with abortion and social control

It must be very exhausting being a leftist, having to constantly cover your tracks.

the problem with social experiments

The problem with social experiments is that they can’t be performed in a laboratory, and they can’t easily be reversed. Many of the social experiments that have had such catastrophic consequences seemed like a good idea at the time.

Removing the stigma on illegitimacy is a classic example. At the time it certainly seemed like a humane idea. No-one really foresaw that it would contribute to the destruction of family life.

Even the liberalisation of divorce laws seemed relatively innocuous to most people. Divorce is always traumatic and it was easy to convince oneself that making divorce less of an ordeal would simply make life easy for a relatively small number of people. Very few people foresaw that it would fatally weaken the institution of marriage.

The introduction of welfare payments for single mothers is less easy to defend, but it was done at a time when it was easy to believe that only a relatively small number of people would be affected.

Childcare was another fatal step, and that’s one bad decision for which no excuses can be offered. The idea of shifting the responsibility for child-rearing away from the family to the state was always a disastrously bad idea.

The legalisation of homosexual activities has widely believed to be a positive step, and again the dangerous consequences were not recognised at the time.

Unfortunately all these things, when combined with the contraceptive pill and the rise of feminism, have utterly destroyed the traditional family.

Of course there have been other forces at work, undermining our society. The cult of personal pleasure and the elevation of sexuality to a central place in society, to the point where sexual identity and sexuality is seen as the be-all and end-all of what makes us individuals, have been equally damaging.

It’s true that there was always a small minority actively seeking to destroy the family as an important step towards their dream of a socialist utopia but none of these social experiments could have occurred had not a significant proportion of the populace allowed themselves to be persuaded that these measures were basically harmless. That’s how societies destroy themselves – it’s a kind of accidental suicide.

That’s really the main reason for opposing homosexual marriage. Every such social experiment attempted thus far has weakened the family and weakened society. Can we afford yet another experiment the results of which cannot be predicted?

What is inexcusable is that once it became obvious that these failed social experiments were destroying our society so-called conservative political leaders did nothing to undo the damage. Mainstream conservative political leaders have displayed shameful cowardice on social issues. This is even more disgraceful given that the majority of voters (and I am convinced of this) would have supported them had they taken action.

I still believe that most conservatives, as distinct from party leaderships, would back actions to take back our society from the hardline leftists and feminists.

the transgender crime against humanity

Nothing horrifies me quite so much as the concept of transgender children. The very notion that children have any kind of understanding of the full ramifications of such momentous life choices is both ludicrous and deeply evil.

Children and teenagers are always confused about sexuality because they lack the life experiences needed to make sense of these things. To take advantage of the normal confusions of adolescence in order to further a political agenda is evil on a scale that must appall any intelligent person. And there is not the slightest doubt that there is a political agenda at work.

Young people are being persuaded to take irreversible steps that will take away from them any chance at all of ever having a normal life. I personally very much doubt if even a person in their twenties has sufficient experience of life to make such decisions, but a recent report confirms that “treatment” is often undertaken on children as young as 11.

This is a tragedy and a crime against humanity

Even more chilling is the fact that these kids are often pressured into “questioning” their “sexual identity” or their “gender identity” by their own parents.

Newtonian physics deniers

One of the characteristics of the scientific method is its willingness to accept new evidence, even if that evidence casts doubts on what were previously considered to be established truths of science.

For two hundred years Newtonian physics was accepted as the explanation for the way the physical world works. In the late 19th century the work of a number of scientists, scientists such as Max Planck, began to undermine this impressive edifice. So what happened to Max Planck? They gave him a Nobel Prize. The German Physical Society named the Max Planck Medal for him – one of the most prestigious of all prizes awarded to theoretical physicists.

Albert Einstein was another physicist whose work on quantum mechanics and relativity put the final nail in the coffin of Newtonian physics. He picked up a Nobel Prize as well.

It’s significant that there was no attempt made to stop such scientists from publishing papers that questioned scientific orthodoxies. These scientists were not labelled as “Newtonian physics deniers” and were not told that their work was unnecessary because “the science is settled.”

Of course the difference is that Newtonian physics was a scientific theory, not a political ideology. And there is not the slightest doubt that climate change is a political ideology.

How has science become so politicised?

the unpredictability of history

It’s easy to fall for the myth of the inevitability of history. But the one thing that is certain about history is that nothing is certain.

Most of the significant political events of the past three decades or so have come as a complete surprise to political pundits, journalists and historians. In 1976 no-one would have predicted that within four years Ronald Reagan would be President of the United States and that within less than fifteen years the Cold War would be won and the Berlin Wall would be no more than a memory.

Ten years ago even the most optimistic global warming sceptics would not have predicted that the global warming hoax would crash and burn as spectacularly as it has, to the point where even the Europeans (the Europeans!!) are losing faith in the fantasies of solar power and wind farms.

Ten years ago no-one would have expected that a doctrinaire Marxist who openly hates the US would be in the White House.

Ten years ago no-one would have predicted the rise of the Tea Party.

Ten years ago who would have expected the rise of the Freedom Party in the Netherlands? Who would have expected that even in Sweden, the most oppressively totalitarian of all European leftist regimes, a party like the Sweden Democrats would have emerged?

Politics in western countries has become extremely volatile. The old tribal political allegiances are meaningless. We’ve seen this happen in Australia, in the recent NSW election, when the Labor Party made the unpleasant discovery that there’s no such thing as a safe Labor seat. There’s no such thing as a safe seat.

That’s why it’s foolish to become excessively optimistic or excessively pessimistic. There will always be opportunities, we just have to be ready to grab them when they appear.

the Hollywood blacklist and the rewriting of history

The practice of rewriting history to give it the approved left-wing spin has been applied energetically to the early Cold War period. Not just to Senator McCarthy’s investigations but also to the investigations of Hollywood by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

In fact many liberals know so little of the real history of those times that they think McCarthy was responsible for the HUAC hearings in spite of the fact that as a senator he obviously had no connection with a House committee, and in spite of the fact that HUAC’s probing of left-wing influence in Hollywood began when McCarthy was still a newly-elected and completely unknown senator.

Just as McCarthy turned out to be right about Soviet spies in the State Department and the Defence Department, so too HUAC was entirely correct in its view that Hollywood was overrun by communists and communist fellow travellers. Most of the “innocent” victims of the Hollywood blacklist that liberals have elevated into martyrs for freedom really did hold extreme left-wing views and they really were consciously and deliberately using Hollywood to propagate those views. If they weren’t actually traitors they were very close to it. They were certainly actively working to subvert their own country (or in the case of the various émigrés their adopted country).

Of course the situation today is much worse and the state of modern Hollywood provides ample evidence that the threat perceived by HUAC was very real indeed.

Like the term “McCarthyism” the blacklist has been used by the Left as a stick with which to beat anyone who dares to disagree with them. And their rewriting of history has been so successful that today their version of events, a version that maintains that communist infiltration of Hollywood was merely a paranoid conspiracy theory, is accepted unquestioningly.