Why are young people left-wing?

I am what would be considered a young person and I am a right-wing conservative (not a Tory though). Without getting into a soul searching debate of what actually defines 'wings', lets just say that I am one of the few, if my position in society at large were to be examined. My fellow peers at university are mostly ultra-liberal and even more so left-wing bordering on socialist. Political affiliation is a difficult subject mostly because the people subject to evaluation simply do not know what they are, because few know what they believe in. They have a few hunches as to what an appropriate knee-jerk response would be to some random statement, intended to produce such a reaction but that is about it. When pressed they get annoyed and want to end the discussion. I do not want to end the discussion, I want to know why most people start of their lives as left-wing liberals but later on change to something else and not necessarily conservatism or similar 'isms'.

I have a lot of friends in Sweden, and Sweden is about to have an election. Regular readers will know that I wrote a long prodding essay about Facebook here, sadly Facebook will feature again in this little attempt to come to closure. Facebook is where the action is, so too with politics. I am very saddened to see that so many of my friends, of similar age to myself, are so fantastically left-wing. They post little messages on their personal "comment" about their thoughts on the election and they join various groups who advocate socialism. Much to my dismay for they are comprehensively and collectively, wholly ignorant of the dangers of what they are advocating. I can say this not because I am a righteous plonk who thinks he knows what is best for everyone else, no, because I am a political nerd, and I would like to think that my thoughts and comments are a bit more informed than those of the average Joe.

I have been fortunate enough to have known some of these people since I could barely walk. They are truly wonderful people, but sitting where I am, they are also complete fucking nut-jobs who are indulging in the most disgusting form of cultural relativism. What is more they seem to have no recollection of history, which is made even worse since I know they have had history classes; I took the same classes. When they say socialism, they dream up some eutopia-like scenario and post a nice little red star to accompany their political creed, leaving me dumbstruck again. They know nothing of the gulags, perestroika or glasnost or of serfs and Molotov. What is 1905 and 17 to them more than some random years? Do they know that Soviet socialism (which is nice way of saying 'communism') killed in excess of 20 million people. Who is Solyetzin, what did he do, 'sounds lika soya to me'. Do they know that socialism/communism has failed everywhere it was tried? Sweden was not built upon socialism, but it just so happens to be one of the frontrunners of the modern welfare state. Welfare per se, is not socialism - I think. That might just be my deluded way of putting together a cognitive argument. Put it like this instead: I believe that if you are fortunate enough to have had the possibilities to advance to such a point that you are self-reliant, then a small small percentage of your income should be given to your fellow man so that he too, hopefully, can do the same. Our birth place is, to the best of our knowledge, random and for all I know I could have been sitting in Katmandu right now, mending carpets, not having a thought in the world for the modern welfare state. Based on that alone, it suffices to say that we should all be compassionate but not excessively so [I think]. However...

The dangers of the welfare state are 1) it often is unjust in taking lawful property from individuals through excessive taxation, 2) it substitutes the collective judgment of the government for the freedom and judgment of the individual 3) it discourages initiative and entrepreneurship by individuals, and 4) it leads to excessive government power and hence corruption. The danger of these tendencies of the welfare state were well summarized by Lionel Trilling, a respected man of the contemporary liberal left as quoted by Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book 'Poverty and Compassion' “Some paradox of our natures leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the object of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the moral imagination”. As political economist F. A. Hayek has stated; “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century”.

So why are young people left-wing? I think (a lot of 'I think' tonight simply because there is very little written on this subject, at least very little that is available to me) a lot of it is derived from some spurious belief that because you are young you want to break from the past, you want the new world, automatically assuming that the old world is a bad world. Since you yourself are 'new' your ideals have not been tainted by reality and pragmatism (you remember, I am sure, all the bollocks you got at school "anyone can do anything" and we all thought 'great, fantastic, I can be a rocket scientist' even though we knew deep down that there was probably only one or two kids in the room who had those kind of brains) and you express yourself in the way of a revolutionary who has the most commendable of values, not to mention altruistic of values, but has little in the way of prospects. Because you are new (simple terminology but lets not get bogged down in semantics) you reject all opposing views as being irrelevant and erroneous, because they are made on the premise of an old society. Yours is the right belief, the righteous belief, yours must be correct because others are wrong, since their ideals and morals have been debased and contaminated by the old world. Hence by proxy, and proxy alone, your altruistic and utopian idea must be morally superior to those of the elders. And since you have the moral imperative only you, and you alone, have the right to change the world.

Socialism is meretricious.

A pathetic tirade of the Right righteous

There is a rather ridiculous thread, doing the rounds over at ConservativeHome. It explains why the 'right' is always right and the 'left' always wrong. It is this kind of monumentally ridiculous arrogance which has left Britain a desolate shadow of her former self. I am as right-wing as they come but never would I stand upon the apex and proclaim myself Lord Protector of the world - omnipotent and omniscient. I thought this kind of breathtaking stupidity was the preserve of the left. Clearly the idiocy has spread to the 'right' as well.

Lets just have a quick recap of why both the 'left' and the 'right' are equally superfluous in the wanting for perspective.

The “Left” (the Labour Party) have got most things wrong but so, at least since the mid 1950s, have the “right” (the Conservative Party). It was the “Right" that took us into the Suez campaign and then lost its nerve when we were within 48 hours of retaking the complete canal.

It was the "Right" who pushed independence upon the African colonies long before they were able to run themselves with disastrous results for the people of those colonies.

It was the "Right" that took us into the “Common Market”, thus wrecking British agriculture, destroying our fishing fleet and costing all of us £billions ever since (net cost now £6bn pa and going on £10bn pa).

It was the “Right” that signed up to the Single European Act and then Maastricht, giving away our democracy to an unelected, self perpetuating, obligingly.

It was the "Right" and "Left" together, with the aim of keeping wage levels of the “workers” low, who pursued policies of flooding the country with unskilled third world and now Eastern European immigrants.

It was the “Right” and “Left” who together decided that we could do without serious industry other than the City and banking.

It is the "Right” and “Left” who have together decided to subsidise uneconomic intermittent wind energy to the tune of several hundreds of £billions; the consequential doubling or tripling in electricity costs which will destroy what remains of our industry.

So I have no hesitation in wishing a plague on both the houses of the "Left" and the "Right".

Degeneration

This is not an accident; this is not a combination of a few pieces of bad luck or misfortune in the national life. Westminster awash with rumours about Brown, rumours about the General, rumours about the Chancellor and rumours ostensibly about Britain. Politicians used to put the higher vested interests in the nation above their own petty party politics. It is not an accident that our government now looks more like a Britney Spears album; a work of pure fiction, produced only to make money and not even the slightest trace of any heart or soul.

This is the result of the very careful grooming of the UK and also the other West European states, that was given direction when the USSR and its fellow-traveller leftist sister parties throughout Europe formed a plan in the mid 1980s. Remember that is was Gorbachev who likened the EU to the USSR. This may all be superficial stuff, for in truth we do not really know what goes on behind the curtains, be quite sure though that it is not for our benefit.

The plan was a reaction against the free markets and philosophy of personal choice of Thatcherism, with the intention of undermining the national identity, moral certainties, will and confidence of nations. One conspiracy theory goes that Thatcher was told by the Bilderberg group to disestablish Britain's sovereignty but she supposedly refused. A conspiracy theory as said but seems that Major and Blair carried on where she left of.

The purpose is to get the nations of Europe, including and particularly the UK, to accept an un-democratic super state with institutions modeled closely on those of the USSR. Blair inadvertently gave it away when, in commenting on the 'peace process' in Northern Ireland, he said to his colleagues who did not entirely see the subtlety "its the process, stupid". 'Project' or 'Process' it is a horrendously strong force which can topple governments. Look at Cowen's government in Ireland - it has the lowest approval ratings in Irish history, well since 1915. Look at Brown's government same story there. Both are kaput, both will be raped by the electorate come the election but that is the fine detail of the scheme; once the election is held in the respective country they wont need to bother for they "democratically" signed the constitution and that is the final piece of engrenage - the gears will kick into over drive once that is signed.

In other words, keep pushing a degenerative agenda. Because as a matter of fact, that is the whole point.

The more ridiculous and untenable positions you force on the populace in every sphere - in wars abroad - in multiculturalism - in economic madness where debit is wealth?! - in hospitals where patients are killed - in local government where people are spied on and children of decent families are abducted by the state - in policing where you can be arrested for your opinions and killed during a demonstration - then the more you tie people up in chasing their tails, in trying to reconcile impossible inconsistencies and in trying to make sense of a society that seems to have gone mad and dysfunctional. This interestingly enough fits well into the list of aims of the Frankfurt school of Marxism:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools and teachers authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

Throw in bread and circuses -that is, bribe the people with their own wealth and the mortgaged futures of their children and 'deliver' (a rotten New Labour use of the word) the Olympics or whatever -and we the people are sleep-walking like shell-shocked zombies into the grim, "post-democratic" nightmare in which the Westminster parliament will be irrelevant, British institutions of worth will be reduced to pastiche, trashed and we will no longer be a free people.

As for civil society, there will not be one, not in their gulags. The most brilliant part in the scheme is that all of this, all that you have just read, will be derided as common conspiracy nuttery and will be treated as such with due respect. It really is a brilliant move. It would be interesting to see how many ministers and MPs know they are being pulled by the leg, who know that they are the "useful idiots" as Khrushchev said.

Its all deliberate. This kind of reduction of a nation does not happen by accident. If it had happened "back in the day" people would have done something about it. One rather famous adage about the British people is that 'we do not do revolutions' it is not our thing. It is not our thing because on the whole, over the past 300 years, we have been comparatively happy with our existence as a prosperous Island nation. We even managed to stick an Empire in there. Somewhere along the line it all went terribly wrong, somewhere someone got the idea that it would be better if us little islanders were bereft of our standing in the world, which by comparison, was huge. Somewhere, someone for some reason - it is all very ambiguous for it completely nonsensical for a Briton to commit such a huge act of treason. Well, today it is not of course, today a politician would sell whatever part of Britain was desired by a foreign state, for a loaf of bread. But before all of this began such behaviour was unheard of.

The three main parties have stated their common position - one of treason against the native peoples of these islands - by refusing a referendum on the European super state.

However this is the basic law of nature; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. They would do well in remembering that.

FFS can the media learn the difference between Right and Left

A lot of newspapers are running stories on the newly formed English Defence League (EDL) who are protesting against Islam. Once you were allowed to protest against Islam but not anymore. However this is not about Islam, there are few religions that I find as vile as Islam, but this is out of the question.

The EDL have been labeled, and I take this newspaper as an example of the misconception, "right-wing" by the Times.

I think a short recap of history is needed before we tare into this highly objectionable newspaper. How did the terms 'right' and 'left' - wing politics come about?

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

Now the way the Times use the term 'right-wing' along with the article suggests that they are in fact fascists - the EDL that is. However looking at the proper fascists of history we see that not only one but two had policies which were suspectedly left-wing (along with the tiny fact that they both killed millions).

What is left-wing?

Centralised command control, trade tariffs, state owned businesses, increase in pensions (well not a necessary one but definitely there), expansion of the NHS and so on. A top down approach all the way through government basically.

Now the media have come to use the term 'right-wing' synonymously with 'baddie' however looking at the comments on the Times article few seem to agree with this stance which the MSM have, for some reason, adopted as their ipso facto approach to right-wing politics. I think we can safely say that the people can see through their little deception quite easily since the only people who do support them are the extremely violet UAF and New Labour apparatchiks.

Iain Dale and John Redwood adopt the similar approach as myself. However people tend to use as argument against this stance that Churchill said in 1939 that

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war, I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among nations.

This is just a pure and blatant misinterpretation of history.

Churchill said this before he became PM, before the nazis started exterminating everyone whom they disliked, before war had been declared on Germany by Britain, before the WWII started through and through. What is more the quote is not even referring to Hitlers policies but his character as a strong man. This is not a defence of Hitler most certainly not nor is it an apology for the Nazis. But do not misinterpret history for political gains. That is what happens in '1984' and it is a very dangerous theme to play around with.

Demonstrating against a concept which you find objectionable, in this case Islam, is not "right-wing" it is Democracy and it is not a spectator sport.