T W A W K I

The world as we know it

The hypocrisy of the socialist left

Gillard’s rush with her Fabian socialism has exposed the wolf. Juliar moved too fast for the Fabians policy of subversive, deception incremental change to gain control by stealth. In the process Gillard ineptly exposed the Left’s malfeasance and corruption recorded in full view in minute detail, on the public and world stage for many, many generations to come.

The sheep’s clothing is off as the Left’s entitlement class who seek to personally profit as obscenely as possible from their elitist moralising is now openly on record. Yet as the Left rake in the spoils from their high ground cries of victim, mysogynist, racist etc reality is exposing that those who are guilty of the worst abuses are none other than the Left themselves. Gillards new waterfront mansion has exposed her hypocrisy yet again as history will see her as one if the worst proponents for her climate communism and socialist cause.

The Lefts hypocrisy was in clear view this week as Gillards old mates at the socialist alliance & their rentacrowd pals marched the streets protesting at boat deaths 50m from the Indonesian shore line as though that was Tony Abbots fault. Yet the deaths are a result of the ALP policy luring economic refugees to pay substantial funds and risk their lives to come to Australia in a dangerous manner when legal, compassionate and safe means of gaining access here are given to over a million people every three years.

Then we heard broken record victim juLIAR bemoaning the mysogeny she claims she suffered from yet she had no problem using any lie, any smear, any falsehood, vilification or fake blame that she used against any who stood in her way to that of high office. Neither did we hear any compassion from Gillard or the left at the death of Britains first PM, Margaret Thatcher. Instead the Left celebrated with partisan BBC at the helm proclaiming ding dong the witch is dead.

Now we have appalling ex AWU boss Shorten, who wimpishly on camera feigns some sort of soppy, sickening, lame alter ego to his conniving, backstabbing, wheeling and dealing actions out of the limelight. La miserables put it well – he plays an angel in the light but needs no urging in the night. Shorten was instrumental in the stabbing of both Gillard & Krudd, but somehow wants us to believe he is harmless. He has his mother in law as the GG, together with her ratified many Fair Work Australia agreements and feels he is somehow entitled to become ALP royalty. Problem is he has killed the party he now hopes to lead.

Then there’s the Deveneys, the Summers, the Milnes, etc the Lefts hyperventilating hags, who utter the most foul abuses yet cry the loudest if someone innocently even looks at them sideways. Bit like Gillard crying mysogeny when it was her own appalling behaviour that attracted criticism, not her gender. The Left’s destroy the joint attack on Alan Jones for his comments about Gillard’s father dying of shame backfired badly when Jones increased his audience and retailers who boycotted Jones saw their sales nosedive and quickly rethought their actions. The Left lost a lot of their perceived punch in the process and were exposed as being out of touch with the majority of Australians, and even more out of touch with those who had significant purchasing power. But the Left don’t get it. The populace are sick of them, their leaders and their rule by hate, bitterness & greed and yet they carry on with their vile behaviour, infatuated with themselves. I like many others can’t wait to see the back of them and welcome new libertarian players into our political spectrum & senate.

So with role models like Gillard and her ilk, socialism is dead and buried. As they saying goes the socialists want everything you have, except your job. But then like Gillard while in power you can use and abuse the governments largesse, giving $60 million dollars in funding to an Adelaide university which later miraculously employs you as a professor even though you are no longer registered as a lawyer and you are under investigation for criminal actions.

As Gillard has demonstrated a socialist is really a thief by any other name. Words of wisdom from Abraham Lincoln to the bitter Left;

Better to be a little nobody, than an evil somebody.

But I guess they just don’t understand that.

Filed under: Governance

12 Responses

  1. […] The hypocrisy of the socialist left | T W A W K I. […]

  2. Tristan Ewins says:

    Actually Karl Marx was one of the most vociferous supporters of Abraham Lincoln, and an implacable opponent of slavery.

    If you really think Gillard was a socialist look to the policies. Look to the pension cutbacks for many disabled and sole parents. The Gillard/Rudd govts were full of contradictions. But at least we got the NDIS; and perhaps now – with public pressure – we will get fiber to the home broadband after all.

    BTW Gillard was a Socialist Forum member- which came out of the right-wing/liquidiationist wing of the Communist Party; But since then she has consistently taken a ‘soft left’ line. I still consider myself a liberal democratic socialist; but indications are Gillard left socialism behind a long time ago.

    Also, the Left itself is diverse. Some on the authoritarian Left – in a similar manner to Conservative attempts to shut down student unions – have tried to silence perspectives they do not agree with. But if democracy is to be meaningful it must be based on choice – and that in turn demands pluralism. For that reason blogs such as this play a legitimate role.

    But In reality the Left is weak in this country: if one takes into account the roles of the monopoly mass media. Sure the ABC and SBS have charters which demand balance – but even that is resented. At least Australians have a choice of broadsheets between Fairfax and Newscorp (The Australian) – but even Fairfax has moved to the right under Rinehart’s influence. And there is little in the way of pluralism in free-to-air commercial media.

    If Abbott wants some advice it is this; Take a leaf out of the book of the post-war German Christian Democrats. For a significant period, at least, they made their peace with the welfare state and the mixed economy. And in reality so too did Liberal governments from Menzies to Fraser.

    Meanwhile – let’s follow Habermas. The idea – for him – being to create ‘a perfect speech situation’ – of deep pluralism – with equal opportunity for expression – and a level playing field of ideas.

    • twawki says:

      Gillard is a globalist and a socialist. She is about wealth redistribution & funding the UN through the fraudulent carbon taxes.

      NBN is already outdated, overpriced and another way of funnelling dollars into the unions. Wireless is the way to go, is flexible, powerful and cheap.

      ABC & SBS are anything but fair, and are a lot more green even than the ALP. As taxpayer funded entities they should have their funding withdrawn as they don’t represent the taxpayers and their opinions are not diverse.

      ALP no longer represent the workers, nor are their pollies workers by background but union hacks, Lawyers & career pollies.

  3. Tristan Ewins says:

    What’s wrong with wealth redistribution? Though I am a liberal democratic socialist, you don’t have to be a socialist to believe in a degree of redistribution. Even the old Democratic Labour Party believed in a welfare state in the context of a mixed economy. The picture you’re painting is one of neo-liberalism versus revolutionary socialism – with nowhere ‘in the middle’.

    And look at the size of the public sector today, and how it changed since Hawke Labor in 1983. In fact ‘government’ was relatively smaller under Labor than under Howard. But Howard directed more resources into what some call ‘middle class welfare’. And then under Gillard/Rudd – while we had some redress of ‘middle class welfare’ (eg: private health insurance rebates for the wealthy), we also had attacks on disability pensions and sole parent pensions. Because there was consensus on ‘small government’; and the consequence of that was ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’.

    In Australia we tend to have a narrowly directed welfare state; Again this occurred under Hawke. This ensured that welfare went to those most in need. But when Howard tried to redistribute that expenditure more broadly without expanding it SIGNIFICANTLY in absolute terms, it meant those in most need lost out. With a growing population and an ageing population, and the prospect of ANOTHER housing bubble, there is the necessity of directing funding to the areas of greatest need. (eg: aged care; and new infrastructure in ‘infrastructure poor’ suburbs, social housing)

    Meanwhile, wireless broadband is nowhere near as fast as FTTP; and access to information industries will drive tomorrow’s economy; And such access will be so essential to social participation it could be seen as a social right. Also: How does the NBN ‘funnel money to the unions’ as you put it????

    You say the ABC and SBS are to the Left “even” of Labor. But let’s be clear – in recent decades we have had ‘convergence’ on the relative Centre. Also that ‘centre’ has moved to the right in relative terms when it comes to industrial liberties and rights, welfare provision, and prospects of a democratic mixed economy’. The old Liberal Wets (eg: liberals like Ian Macphee, Don Chipp etc) ended up to the Left of the Labor Party itself…

    Both Labor and Liberal have supported industrial deregulation, punitive welfare, user pays, privatisation, and flatter taxes. In order for us to remain a PLURALIST democracy it is up to institutions such as the ABC and SBS, and small parties like the Greens – to pose an alternative – to provide genuine choice.

    I consider myself a liberal democratic socialist; But don’t get confused that that is ‘secretly’ the mainstream Labor position. Leftists have been fighting a ‘rearguard action’ in Labor for about three decades. That’s the reality.

    • twawki says:

      We already pay excessive taxes. At what point do those who work their butts off and take financial risks give up and say they are fed up with doing all that so those who choose neither to work or take risks can have a better standard of living & higher disposable income. As the saying goes socialists want everything you have except your job.

    • twawki says:

      Indonesia is launching a satellite that will provide cheap, fast and accessible wireless to Australians at a fraction of the price of the NBN.

    • twawki says:

      I defend the rights of all to speak. I don’t think it’s appropriate for the any side to use taxpayers money to do so. The ABC needs to go.

  4. Tristan Ewins says:

    Twawki; The problem is that in adhering to a purist classical economically liberal philosophy you’re neglecting the preconditions of POLITICAL liberalism in the form of pluralism. Were it not for the ABC and SBS pretty much all our mass media would be in the hands of a small group of billionaires. And instead of pluralism – which means REAL choice ( a precondition for meaningful democracy) – we would only be exposed to a very narrow, right-wing spectrum of opinions. Which might seem ok for you; but imagine if the shoe was on the other foot for a moment: if those media proprietors were promoting left-wing views and effectively excluded you and those like you from meaningful participation.

    re: “excessive taxes”; well, our levels of tax are already very low compared with the OECD average. I guess if you wanted lower taxes at all costs you’d get rid of Medicare and the PBS, while letting state education wither on the vine. But would you defund the military I wonder? If we end up like the US we will have the US’s problems too – underclass, crime, high levels and costs of imprisonment….

    Also – I don’t mind small businesses getting a better deal than big businesses. Very small businesses do take risks… Although the definition of ‘small business’ is questionable when it includes companies with hundreds of employees. But all businesses directly or indirectly benefit from education, training, infrastructure etc. And privatisation of infrastructure doesn’t make sense either – leading to rent-seeking behaviour from private investors who want good returns – when public investment is actually more efficient – as it needs not accommodate profit margins, and because government tends to have a better credit rating, and enjoys a lower cost of borrowing…

    The reality is that the workers are being exploited more intensely than ever. The wage share of the economy has been shrinking for over 30 years. And cuts in corporate taxes means that worker tax payers need to cover for corporate use of state infrastructure and services. This is why some people talk about ‘corporate welfare’.

    Finally if you were willing to pursue a good mix of enterprise and economic democracy then why not support co-operative and mutualist enterprise in everything from credit to insurance, to co-operative restaurants? That is: provide advice and cheat credit for co-operative enterprise.

    And if we really want higher disposable income then interventionist industry policy makes more sense that ‘letting the market clear’ at the cost of an entrenched underclass.

    Finally Satellite is a fraction of the speed of FTTP.

    • twawki says:

      ABC is paid for by the taxpayers, it should represent them, end of story. Free market media can only sell what people choose to buy.

      Our taxes are excessive. Big government is wasteful & inept. There are much better ways of doing things.

  5. Tristan Ewins says:

    Thanks at least for accommodating some debate, twawki;

    Though If you don’t accept arguments about pluralism – if that isn’t a priority for you – there’s not much more I can say. Except if you look to Voluntary Student Unionism legislation you’ll find arguments about ‘freedom’ simply being used to shut down political rivals. If pluralism was genuinely supported that wouldn’t be acceptable. Pluralism is key to genuine choice, and choice is key to democracy.

    Re: the ‘free market’ and the public sphere – the problem is our mass media is owned by billionaires – which is what it takes to dominate the mainstream… Billionaires invest there not for profits but for power… And when wealth determines what views are heard and which views are not heard – that is bad for democracy. Sure you could say people have the freedom not to consume – But small players just don’t have the capital reserves to manage the overheads involved and compete meaningfully with the ‘big players’.

    You make a blanket statement: “our taxes our excessive” – yet you don’t compare us with the rest of the world. And when you consider the countries that have smaller government than us (eg: the US) you don’t consider the social consequences.

    • twawki says:

      You ignore that government funded propaganda gives undue weight to extreme views of the left eg ABC. Billionaires cannot sell papers that people don’t want to read – just look at fairfax. If you are so anti billionaires why don’t you criticise billionaire Soros and his funding of left wing media? There is more diversity today just look at blogs. Those that grow are those the people visit and want to read. Why fund the media that is dying when the people find their messages abhorrent, biased, self centred etc. If you are concerned about fairness why not complain about how the right is censored on twitter while the left gets free reign. Your entitlement mentality to preserve a vicious left is why it will continue to fail.

    • twawki says:

      Regarding taxes your assumption that we should compared ourselves to the worst is simply a flawed argument that means we will get progressively worse. We should be comparing ourselves to the best and trying to match their government efficiency and value for money.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The New Rich

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. Thomas Paine

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. RONALD REAGAN,
.......
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai E. Stevenson Jr
.......
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other. Carl Schurz
.......
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy
.......
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward. Patricia Sampson
.......
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. Thomas Macaulay
.......
The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. Henry David Thoreau
.......
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

%d bloggers like this: