Pseudo-Left Is Far Right

I've been talking to some Pseudo-Lefties recently and I never cease to be shocked by their ignorance, arrogance, rudeness and downright stupidity.
It's as if the word 'Bigot' were specifically coined for them.
There seems to be a general acceptance that Identity Politics is somehow left-wing, to be associated with Socialism. The Pseudo-Lefties, such as their current hero Jeremy Goebbels, are in fact on the far right.
Fascist ideology wants us to believe that we all belong to different corporations or identities. For instance, an American black man in jail has more in common with Obama than he has with an American white man in jail. It is absurd, of course, but obvious reality is what those in power want to hide.
The Fascist  State bundles these different groups together, and together they are strong, against the enemy.
Because Hierarchy and State are, for the Fascist, the natural order of things, as it is for our Pseudo-Lefties, inevitably there is the need for the Other, the Scapegoat.
I am sure Jeremy Goebbels is sincere when he says he is not an anti-Semite. I am sure that he believes it to be true. Nevertheless, from an objective point of view, he most certainly is a racist, because his world view is that of the conspiracy theorist, where 'Zionists' control this that and the other. There is no other explanation for the Pseudo-Left obsession with Israel.
If they were not racists they would be boycotting the United Kingdom. Surely the U.K. has killed more Arabs than Israel has ever done. They could boycott the U.K by refusing to pay their taxes. When they start boycotting the big players, instead of one small group, then I will accept that they are not racist.
So, Pseudo-Left ideology is in essence Fascism.
Socialism, on the other hand, is based on class, not so much income, but our place within the hierarchical power structure. At heart all people are equal. We are only divided by our place in the structure of dominance.
Pseudo-Leftism wishes to integrate previously excluded groups into the power structure, women in particular, whereas Socialists wish to destroy that power structure.
Fascism, or Political Correctness, as it know these days, wishes to keep us apart.
Jeremy Goebbels is occasionally called a Socialist, but usually he is described as 'Left'. That is mainly because if he were described as a Socialist, it would soon become clear that he is not.
He intends to put one or two industries under the control of the Capitalist State, and what else?
There will be more bosses, less freedom, and blood will flow.

Jeremy's Friends

                                                Jeremy's Friends


Started out a NUPE official, full-time
Civil service management union, doing fine
Councillor in the Borough of Haringey
Bernie Grant and friends making hay

Friends with murderers McGuinness and Adams
IRA. killers, snivelling cowards
And Diane Abbott, racist PC tool
'White people like to divide and rule'

Europe's bureaucratic Pseudo-Left
Podemos, Syriza, conspiracy, daft
Pony tails, motorbikes, they think they're cool
Theirs the old lie, the socialism of fools

United by hatred of the Jews
Eno, BDS, Livingstone too
Hamas, Iran, Hizbollah
George Galloway, Raed Salah

Jeremy, hero of bourgeois spite
Leading us into the fascist night
Killers, haters, the conspiracy he keeps,
There's a name for men like Jeremy.........................

Image

Am I the image of a monkey?
Am I a creature of flesh and blood?
Or is reality the image of Heaven
And I the image of the Lord above?

Where does my righteousness come from?
From spite, appetite, a fearful mind?
Or does the image know love and justice
Forgiveness, mercy, Justice Divine?

Am I simply a machine that consumes
That grabs and feeds the glorious 'I'?
Or must the image create and play, and
Giving freely, proclaim Love Divine?

Am I a slave who bows to Power?
Who cringes before both Idols and Man?
Or do I live in blessed freedom
Obedient to God's Holy Lamb?

Do I flee life, seek only darkness?
The resentful self who worships the Lie?
Or do I seek light in life Eternal
The Image, one with the Creator Divine?

Murder Is Their Righteous Policy

Today we learn that the coalition of the bombers have killed dozens of ordinary people in airstrikes in Syria. Over the past twenty years the Royal Air Force have murdered, maimed, and burned tens of thousands of ordinary people in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria - that is, old and young, frail and healthy, male and female, ordinary people like you and me, have suffered and died, burned and tortured, so our representatives may play their power games. Overwhelmingly, the politicians of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party have supported this butchery as they set up their Welfare/Warfare Police State.
Sadder still, the Church is largely silent.
Even sadder still, the Archbishop of Vichy, Justin Welby, supports this butchery, doing Caesar's work, the Devil's work rather than Christ's.
No doubt he will tell us that the deaths of these innocents is a price that he and his masters are prepared to pay.

Northern Ireland: Refusing To Redefine Uranus

The Northern Ireland Assembly has voted yet again to reject a proposal for Gay Marriage, defying the efforts of the UK Government, the European Union, the United Nations and, no doubt, the Illuminati and Martians too, to change the way mankind experiences sexuality.
Since time immemorial man and women have had a set of genitalia each, which when joined together quite possibly produce a child. In this way the human race is continued in a pleasant, friendly and enjoyable way. We are aware of sexual pleasure, much as we are aware of the pleasure of eating food. Eating and fecundating go beyond the urges of instinctive necessity and into the realms of pleasure.
But other parts of the body, although sensitive, are not genital. The anus, the mouth, and the hand are used in sexual and erotic touching, but they are not genitalia.
Our forefathers knew perfectly well where to draw the line. Anal sex, oral sex and masturbation were regarded as perversions.
So are you feeling a bit indignant, a bit offended, a bit pervy even. Well, so you should. There are not many of us who are fit to cast the first stone at our gay brothers and sisters.
But to confess that a lot of us like something a bit naughty does not make that naughtiness right and proper.
There are two main consequences of defining the back passage and the mouth as sexual organs.
Firstly, sexual activity becomes yet another dreary commodity, a spiral of ever decreasing thrills, as it becomes divorced from its primary function of producing children, and its cerimonial unity of man and woman.
Secondly, by rendering sexual activity as primarily a subjective source of pleasures, and expanding the genital areas to the anus and the mouth, we are leaving our daughters wide open to abuse. Young girls are taught in schools that to be sodomised is to be expected, that Women's Liberation means that they should be satisfied with no dignity, but that of a sexual object complete with multiple spunk filling orifices.
This cannot be right!
It is good that men should love men, and that women should love women, and that men should love women and that women should love men.
But let's put an end to this cult of sodomy. Private matters are private, but pornography that portrays oral sex and anal sex should be banned, and whereas civil unions of people of the same gender should be welcomed, let us leave marriage as it always has been, the sacred ceremony that unites woman and man.

Inoffensive Democracy

I attended the 'hustings' in the Parish Church yesterday afternoon. The five candidates sat and did not stand, behind a table before us. There was the current Member of Parliament, a Conservative, one of the 513 guilty men, a young Labour student careerist, a nice but clueless Liberal young man, a Ukip guy, a small businessman, and a Green tax inspector, who was as certain as any Jehovah's Witness that the end is high, and that the only answer is, of course, more taxation and more regulation.
But the strangest thing about the hustings was that neither barracking, nor asking questions was allowed. All ten questions were decided by who knows what power, but certainly not by us. So we had polite discourse on immigration, the deficit, and the development of the town centre.
But the burning issues of the day - those that get people hot under the collar - nothing, zilch.
The Green woman tried to raise global warming, Trident, and the bombing of Libya and the Ukip guy tried to raise the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There were no questions concerning Equal Marriage, nuclear power, Scottish independence, our membership of the European Union. Nobody expressed an opinion on abortion or child sex education.
Nobody expressed an opinion about press censorship or the end of free speech.
Because, of course, free speech is dead.
Five years ago, at the hustings, people asked questions from the floor. I remember, a lady, a social worker asking about children's services. I didn't share her slant, but it was her thing, her passion.
But this free expression is no longer allowed.
Such is the fear that someone may say something Offensive, that the police may be involved, that all passion, all opinion, all controversy must be prevented.
And so we are silenced.
We got a vague idea about the candidates' competence and their commitment to the locality, but that was it.
Democracy or no, when debate is silenced we live in a Tyranny.

They Loved Problems And Hated Solutions

G.K. Chesterton again. Amazingly, what is happening now was happening a hundred years ago.

'It may be said of Socialism, therefore, very briefly, that its friends recommend it as increasing equality, while its foes resist it as decreasing liberty. On the one hand it was said that the State could provide homes and meals for all, on the other it was answered that this could only be done by State Officials who would inspect homes and regulate meals. The compromise eventually made was one of the most interesting and even curious cases in history .
It was decided to do everything that had ever been denounced in Socialism, and nothing that had ever been desired in it.
Since it was supported to gain equality at the sacrifice of liberty , we proceeded to prove that it was possible to sacrifice liberty without gaining equality. Indeed there was not the faintest attempt to gain equality, least of all economic equality. But there was a very spirited and vigorous effort to eliminate liberty by means of an entirely new group of crude regulations and interferences.
But it was not the Socialist State regulating those whom it fed, like children, or even like convicts. It was the Capitalist State raiding those whom it had trampled on and deserted in every sort of den, like outlaws or broken men. It occurred to the wiser sociologists that, after all, it would be easier to proceed more promptly to the main business of bullying men, without having gone through the laborious preliminary business of supporting them. After all, it was easy to inspect the house without having helped build it; it was even possible, with luck, to prevent it being built.
.........the people of this age loved problems and hated solutions. It was easy to restrict the diet without providing the dinner.