Shorter Gerry Nicholls: "Speaking as a hard-core, Bible-thumping, gay-bashing, right-wing wankoid who fled politically from that very word in stark terror years ago, let me explain to those on the Left what it really means to be a 'progressive'."
Apparently, I'm a bit off-base. In the comments section, "anonymous" takes me to task, writing:
Gerry Nicholls is not, nor ever has been, a Christian, bible thumping or otherwise. He is not only pro-SSM, he's pro-gay small-l liberal. Ask him yourself if you wish; he won't deny it.
He's not too popular with the conservative wing of the Conservative Party; we regard him as a liberal wanker of the highest order.
Ah, you must forgive me but when someone, writing at the Blogging Tories and wielding a massively-wide paint brush, refers to progressives as "socialists" and describes their political beliefs as "dead-end," I'm pretty sure I can be excused for not taking the time to look him up on Wikipedia for his detailed biography.
Quite simply, if you want to hang out over at Assclown Central, you don't really have the right to complain when someone calls you a clown.
9 comments:
Funny, It won't let me post....how progressive of them.
More lies and fabrications from Gerry Nicholls. My, what a suprise.
Yeah, progressives go around all day siging The Internationale and demanding we nationalise the means of production.
You know, the Cold War really scrambled a lot of conservative brains, didn't it? And I'm being charitable when I suggest Nicholls is delusional (which would absolve him of personal responsibility). Mostly, I think he's a dishonest shil.
Gerry Nicholls is not, nor ever has been, a Christian, bible thumping or otherwise. He is not only pro-SSM, he's pro-gay small-l liberal. Ask him yourself if you wish; he won't deny it.
He's not too popular with the conservative wing of the Conservative Party; we regard him as a liberal wanker of the highest order.
anonymous writes:
"Gerry Nicholls is not, nor ever has been, a Christian, bible thumping or otherwise. He is not only pro-SSM, he's pro-gay small-l liberal."
That may very well be true, but when someone posts a front-page screed at the Blogging Tories, whining about how left-wingers are no longer entitled to the label of "progressive," I think I'm entitled to over-generalize the same way.
It's called "hyperbole." Deal with it.
How can one be a small L liberal and write about how liberal ideas are dead ends? He's advocating we go into a dead end, just very slowly??
That would be Gerry Nicholls of the ultra-left-wing National Citizen's Coalition. He's relentlessly pro-gay, although I can't speak for his Christianity.
"A liberal wanker of the highest order" indeed. If the NCC is on the left, then there's about six people on the right.
There's only room for four people to the right of him, Adam, because as he describes himself on his own blog, he's "one of the top five political minds in the country".
Are there any *modest* libertarians?
I mean, which way round does it go?
Does one read a bit of Hayek and suddenly bloat up like a blimp, or does being an egotistical blowface naturally lead to reading Hayek?
Yes Alison, there are modest libertarians. They are the ones who have done more than read a couple of fiction books by Rand, and realized maybe a decade or so ago, that integrating libertarianism as a philosophy was a life-long pursuit, and that it was not just a cool way to use logic to cudgel people over the heads.
In old-timer libertarian circles, we recognize the phenom you are speaking of as "macho libertarian flash".
It can often be characterized by people new to the philosophy running around blathering things like "fuck the poor" and such just because they know it bothers people from the left a great deal.
Such behaviour generally accompanies the first couple of years that somebody is studying the philosophy. It's also known as the "angry" phase of objectivism or libertarianism --
Now, as you get older, you tend to develop more compassion for people instead of less, and you also tend to have more tolerance for others who you find honestly hold their position, even if you think it's wrong.
Such assumptions are not granted by new Libertarians. It's always assumed that if somebody proposes some sort of collectivist idea or thinking that, after a brilliant argument has been delivered by the new libertarian, and their audience doesn't "get it" -- this is proof that such a person is an "evil evader".
The problem with the philosophy of Ayn Rand is that by mere mimicry, one can reasonably (to outside observers) pretend to be actually thinking, when in actual fact, all they are doing is parotting Rand's ideas, and they have not integrated anything the woman said -- which in light of her philosophy, I find to be a strange bit of weird irony.
This is even worse when somebody merely dumps one particular dogma, and replaces it with objectivist or even libertarian dogma.
As for me... One of the things I got from Rand was how vitally important it was for people to think for themselves. Which is why, bar none, I would actually prefer to sit down and have a discussion with a disciplined marxist thinker, than a pseudo libertarian who is merely second-handing Rand's philosophy, any day of the week.
While I may disagree with a friend of mine who is a PhD in philosophy and a marxist, the guy actually does provide subtle, interesting and important things for me to think about, as I continue to integrate the principles of libertarianism.
I've also come to the conclusion of late that what philosophy people espouse has little to do with what kind of judgement I might make of them. It's how they act, and what they would really be prepared to do, in a given situation that counts.
And for me, most of the people on the left in Canada are for more interested in preserving individual rights viz personal freedoms and liberties, than the right is.
Where we differ of course is that I hold that personal freedoms don't amount to much if the corrolary of economic freedom does not accompany it to the same degree.
And that is the subject for respectful debate.
Do you literally have to be reminded that you used to have this major political force that styled itself "Progressive Conservative?" That we used to delight in telling Canadians that Canada was the only place in the world where you could convince people you could get a "progressive" and a "conservative" out of the same box? (Admittedly, this was before we had "compassionate conservatices.")
Your friend here simply has forgotten that the Tories have purged every shred of progress out of their movement. He stilll fancies himself "progressive."
Post a Comment