Ranting over something Left.

I’m not a fanatic for people who deceive their flock, often this means I am a part-time critic of religions, however, in this case, a want to confer with you concerns over the modern left. the role of the left by history, in its basic form, is to assist in helping the people towards greater equality, a noble idea, however beyond the templates of socialism and relating ideologies we find a diverse series of belief systems. They blur together in the modern era, after the failure of communism and relating projects, and the old left is a dead movement, not that we are free of the walking dead. Old men and young inspired people, ideologically speakers and passionate subordinates.
Blind faith is for such zombies, the certainty of one’s beliefs is a delusional way of thinking that often permeates the newly political, the student for all his or her study is a malleable person, credulous when faced by intelligent authorities. Sadly, most of the modern left is generated from the inspired middle-class student, not from the average working man or woman, since they have unions ad lives, whereas the student convert is driven like any fanatic to be an active part of the change they consider to be justified.
The troubling thing that I find to be more common than not is ignorance covered by knowledge, where the person believes they know something no great inquiry is seen as necessary. Simply, the person who is given enough reasonable answers need not imagine that the answers they have are imperfect, and they needn’t believe they need to look beyond their limited worldview.
What I have experience of the left is thus, the claims thick and fast, the sources selected and biassed, and to doubt the gospel of the devout lefty is to be as countered to him as the vilest ultra-conservative with fascistic tendencies. The facts they have are often good enough to state as fair, they fail because the claims upon the facts are the foundation they lay, and from any radical left or right view, the centre parties all look the same. As looking at two people far away you may not see clearly they are two and distinct, although they stand close to each other. Piling such points over each other while discussing can be very hard to debate, let alone rebuke, this is the plan, just like the street preacher who opens his mouth far more than he dares use his ears for fear of hearing that which is not godly. They may suggest you must read a book by Noam Chomsky or another great author, even if this Labour movement member before you is saying this not to truly inform you, but to bend you. When faced with a horrid wind even the strongest of trees may lean or break under its assault. And, if you don’t swallow the claims, if you have your own solid ground for discussion, nd you bring it to bear, you must be the enemy. In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four it was the hatred towards Emmanuel Goldstein and his collaborators that got the blood flowing for loyal Oceanians as they chanted hatred, real world extreme socialists are often as full of bile. In fact, the anger they feel towards the outsiders, the moderates, the conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who isn’t a double plus duck speaking supporter of big brother is counter to the truth of IngSoc.
I am happy to say most socialist are not in those ranks, they do not cling to the roles that party lines would impose, they’d rather have a life while supporting social reform and protection of rights. As a result, the average socialist is not only none party-aligned, he or she is a liberal and to a great or lesser degree a centre ground voter. And given the correct politician is more than willing to vote conservative or for a party like UKIP. You can even find videos of the British Nationalist Party members saying they’re socialist, I think they fail to understand what brand of socialism they belong to, not that I need to explain their error to an informed reader.
The Orwellian element is not felt in the liberalism in the Labour Party, which has for a long time been liberal, or at its height a social democratic party, although, the Labour Movement in its many forms isn’t so unblemished. And, it is that movement that is infested by an irrational and unrealistic political philosophy, this perspective is the previously noted one that resonates with the youthful and newly politicised. Naturally, this type of person, pseudo-activist and all, is preached to by old masters, including professors and authors who love the idea of social so much that they promote Marxism while reaping every benefit of a wealthy capitalist society. It is easy enough once most of our troubles are removed to dream up new ones, woo the young women by claiming that feminism is needed now more than ever, to recruit non-conformists by focusing on the cracks in society, to suggest racism is still a vast issue by slanting the issues. Meanwhile, the first world issues of such people lead them towards imposing their politics, including abusing respectfulness, political correctness, to impose their own ideology.
Political correctness is often not to have a tolerance, as we look to the left or right we find rivals, and if we observe the authoritarian groups we find they are willing to impose their politics upon people in the name of ending hatred. A step to the left or right and we find methods of avoiding saying what is truly happening, hiding behind a barking or quacking of mindless terms, duckspeak. Duckspeak is what it is in the Nineteen Eight-Four world to be one who speaks without a use of the higher faculties, simply speaking. Many political conformists are duckspeakers, they use buzzwords and repeat points, they think in a limited way that means they selected data to fit their world view.
Why do smart people believe crazy things?
Because they’re smart enough to find ways of rationalising things.
When faced with selected data saying racism is as bad as ever, the first thing you do shouldn’t be stop looking at the facts, nor should it be fall in line and reading more of the highly biassed sources you may be in lockstep with. Black Lives Matter is an example, a political cult on a practical level, lying through their teeth, and they gather a flock who use their sources like it’s been given down from heaven. I could list off a bunch of groups that fit that kind of bill on the left, many are good by focusing on real issues, however when they take a minor first world problem or hypothetical issue and create a problem for serious activists. While you are busy draining feminist and anti-racist activism towards first world issues there’s a whole world with greater problems than some character types in some computer games, or, the catcalls a girl dressed like a whore gets in Harlem, NY.
With devout socialists in Britain, these people who speak as if we live in the height of the great depression in a mining town, with people on the poverty line and lucky to have steady work. However, in this era it’s not about having enough food or coal for the fire, it’s about people who are getting money and mismanage it, and so selecting sources is normal practice to say the reason why family X needed to go to the food bank is due to the corporate elite and the corporate influenced government, which isn’t utterly wrong. Family X may be a good example, but not representative, not that this matters, all that is required is convincing arguments to sway you, and it’s called evidence. Pseudo-news then? selecting surveys, picking bias stories in the press, and creating other such ways of swaying the under thinking person who should know better, but probably doesn’t.