The True Deniers

I was on the left of the political spectrum. I supported Harold Wilson in the UK and voted twice for Whitlam. My Dad, a tradesman, was a union man. My formative credentials were impeccable. I could have become a True Believer. I changed my mind and became and remain a conservative. Not a classical liberal or libertarian, you understand, but a conservative. Classical liberals and libertarians tend to be in favour of too much individual licence and globalism for my liking.

Mind you, classical liberals and libertarians have cases to be made. As do left-wingers of the kind my dad and I used to be, and dare I say of the kind George Orwell used to be. Accordingly, I often find myself in agreement with one or other of their positions. But then there are post-modern progressive leftists. A vast impenetrable chasm separates their minds from mine.

They are, to my mind, a race apart. My best guess is that they are alien body snatchers from the dead planet Stultus; otherwise now called Wajinga in Swahili, after the Kenyan scientist and philosopher who discovered it in the 17th Century, but whose discovery was buried before being usurped by a privileged older white man of typically low and despicable character. You might doubt this explanation in its entirety (and should) but you can’t doubt the strangeness of the following beliefs which seem to be held, wholly or in part, by vast numbers of people who, nevertheless, give the appearance of being one of us.

  • Humankind can change the climate; phooey to King Canute.
  • Wind, sun and batteries can power the modern industrial world; hail to the IPCC, Al Gore and Elon Musk.
  • Socialism can work; phooey to history.
  • Marxism can work; phooey to history.
  • Sexual identity is a matter of choice even in schoolgirls’ changing rooms; phooey to biology.
  • There are tens if not hundreds of different genders; take your pick each Tuesday.
  • Men can marry men and women women and then adopt children; phooey to the millennia-old institution of traditional marriage and to the well-being of children.
  • Masculinity is toxic; femininity is noble; the American Psychological Association and a company that makes razors says so.
  • Little boys really are made of slugs and snails and puppy dogs’ tails and must be feminised through cross-dressing, penis tucking and homosexual role plays; what can possibly go wrong?
  • The army is a social experiment in gender fluidity and equal opportunity; any future opposing armies will have been equally cured of discrimination and toxic masculinity; what can possibly go wrong?
  • People who espouse non-progressive views are hateful, bigoted, racist, xenophobic and sexist and must be shut down and, ultimately, re-educated; diversity has its limits
  • Refugees are better people than citizens who live in poorer outer suburbs or in rural communities; aka deplorables.
  • Refugees must be allowed to flood across borders, be given generous help from taxpayers and settled among deplorables; deplorables will learn to cope.
  • Foreign aid is never ever near enough; phooey to the evidence of its abject ineffectiveness and to the waste, corruption, and dependency it engenders.
  • Our forebears did unforgivably wicked things to indigenous peoples; there is no end to how sorry we, our children, their children, and theirs in turn, ad infinitum, must be.
  • Religion is primitive; Christianity is especially worthy of being pilloried at every opportunity; however, the religion of peace lies in a protected realm beyond criticism.

I could go on, unfortunately, for there is no end to the madness. Its sheer extragalactic nature is mindboggling to a grounded Earthling such as myself. When did it all start? It has probably been around in primitive, unevolved, form for a century or more. Orwell had it bang to rights in The Road to Wigan Pier in the 1930s. He spotted progressives before anyone knew what to call them collectively. Here he is:

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

You have to say that however perceptive he undoubtedly was, Orwell could not have envisaged the political progeny of sandal-wearers and feminists infiltrating and dominating political life, the media, public services, universities, schools, large corporations, and even the upper echelons of police and defence forces.

A final point, it is ironic that those who doubt the global warming thesis are called “deniers” by the “I believe in climate change” crowd. For if there is one thread running through progressive views it is denialism. In the psychology of human behaviour, denialism is a way to avoid uncomfortable truths and consequences. Examine each of the beliefs of progressives. Translated into policy and action, none will improve the lot of people in the developed and civilised Western world. Most will end in suffering and tears. Progressives truly are the high priests of denialism.



12 thoughts on “The True Deniers

  • Rob Brighton says:

    Orwell did envisage “the political progeny of sandal-wearers and feminists infiltrating and dominating political life” 1984 shows the result albeit sartorially different the underlying disaster is there for all to see.

  • ianl says:

    > ” Classical liberals and libertarians tend to be in favour of too much individual licence and globalism for my liking …”

    Individual licence (whatever) and globalism are opposites. Globalists do not countenance individualism – except for themselves, of course, but then they know best.

    Individualism – after all, what is wrong with doing the best one can for oneself and family ?

    As for the epithet “denier” as applied to AGW, refusing to debate – a classic ploy to avoid exposure – invites the epithet “hysteric”. I have found this enrages them as much as FakeNews. Language matters …

  • padraic says:

    If George Orwell’s books were mandatory reading in secondary schools and first year university we may not have the “progressive” shambles that we have today. I was thinking of George Orwell only the other day when reading about the whacko causes du jour – climate change, veganism, pill testing, toxic masculinity etc and how such fantasies would have appealed to the Pigs in Animal Farm. The Pigs views and actions are reflected in the green-progressive electoral platform and general behavior. You are right Peter re your comments on that wonderful observation taken from Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Peer. Such ratbags listed in that extract now control significant chunks of our social institutions.

  • whitelaughter says:

    Where did it begin? close on two millennia ago, Justin Martyr says that all understand basic morality excepting those who “who have been debased by education, by wicked customs, and by sinful institutions, and who have lost, or rather quenched and put under, their natural ideas” in his Dialogue with Trypho.

    It probably goes back further than that though.

    In all seriousness, I think they were bred for food. Stone Age man tried to domesticate every critter – even the hippopotamus – so it would make sense that he tried to domesticate other humans as well. The desired trait in humans bred for the table would be a determination to fawn at the feet of the strong, and to remain with those who are willing to inflict suffering on them; a desirable secondary characteristic would be that they abuse those who would help them. The way the trendies fawn at the feet of the Islamofascists and abuse the church that covers the world with charities perfectly matches what I would expect in human livestock.

  • padraic says:

    Oops – typo alert – should be Pigs’ and Pier.

  • Mohsen says:

    It doesn’t seem “licence” and “globalism” are to be contrasted here. By “licence” I believe it was meant, “excessive freedom :  the abuse of liberties granted”–Merriam Webster. And from SOED: “We must distinguish between freedom and licence–A. Bevan”. The use of “licence” is deliberate by Peter implying his disapproval of the libertarians’ view on individual liberty.

    Also, by “globalism”, I believe, the reference is to the open border policy advocated by the Libertarians.

  • Mohsen says:

    On one point in your comment: Personally I can’t see what’s wrong with veganism to be referred as whacko! You see a vegan who (let’s believe his claim) does his best (now that he’s here on this earth) to avoid being a cause and agent of pain, suffering, fear, and death of animals (doing his best however successful or unsuccessful he is!) as whacko?
    But in one way I can see why there could be criticism leveled at the vegans: They’re not good contributors to national security by not being good contributors to the procreation of the next generation (as one would expect of them, them being vegans).

  • Mohsen says:

    Correction! In my last comment I meant to insert a dash in the first sentence after “veganism”.

  • padraic says:

    Good point Mohsen. My beef is not with individual adult vegans who make the free choice to eat that way. I respect that choice. But “veganism” is another matter. It is vegan activists that I detest. Some years back I visited a friend in Kent, UK. He was not happy, because his daughter had not only become a vegan but had joined a group of activists who used to go around the various towns in his vicinity in the dead of night and smash the display windows of butchers’ shops. It is this sort of violence that gives “veganism” a bad name. Another example was their campaign in USA to stop manufacturers using Australian wool in their products a few years back because of mulesing. I used to help out a sheep farmer friend at shearing time and assist with docking lambs on his property. The sheep industry brought out the female celebrity who was the front person of the American activists’ campaign and showed her a sheep that had been mulesed and one who had not and was flyblown and was dying a painful death. She saw how a minor operation – not as bad as getting your appendix out – actually saved the sheep from a horrible death and realized she was being used and subsequently cut ties from the activist group. Thank goodness most vegans decide to become vegans after they have reached puberty. I once worked on a program for children suffering from malnutrition. A growing child needs more protein g/Kg bodyweight for healthy development – mental and physical – than an adult – who just needs a daily maintenance dose of protein, because they are not growing. That can be accomplished in adults with plant protein but plant protein on its own is not adequate for infants and children and animal protein is also required and is better assimilated – vide human breast milk protein – humans are animals not plants – our metabolism is designed primarily for animal protein. For vegan extremists to put a child on a strict vegan diet from a very young age to me is a crime, particularly if their own parents fed them a balance of animal and plant protein from which they benefited. And finally, it is not only the physical violence displayed by what I term the “veganistas” but also their efforts to demonise people who adhere to the traditional balanced diet of both animal and plant protein.

  • Mohsen says:

    Thanks padraic!

    Couldn’t agree with you more about your views on vegan activists and their actions. And that going and being vegan should be adult individual choices, and children must be kept out of them for reasons that you mentioned.

  • Jody says:

    Orwell’s “Road to Wigan Pier” certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons; I read it and enjoyed his takedown of socialism with relish. But I also understood very quickly what Orwell also said about middle class socialism (an oxymoron, it most definitely should be): “They dislike the poor and hate the rich’.

    All the things mentioned by Peter Smith, together with the platform of the Labor Party and its peripheral ‘social issues’ for minorities, is nicely spelled out via the American political system in Tucker Carlson’s book, “Ship of Fools” – which I’m reading. Thoroughly recommended for its often humorous but perceptive observations about the so-called ‘elites’ and the regressive Left. Highly recommended. But it does give rise to a significant amount of pessimism.

  • padraic says:

    I’ll try and get that book, Jodie. I have just finished “Darkness at Noon” by Arthur Koestler. It’s like 1984 on steroids and should be another book prescribed for those youngsters who think Marxism is the way to go. Koestler shows what happens in a society when academics like Marx ( who think they know everything) devise a political system that is inflexibly foisted on the population and defies common sense.

Leave a Reply