Wednesday, 21 February 2018

Chauncey: The Commie Traitor



You know there are certain similarities between Chauncey and Donald Trump. Both are outsiders thrust into positions of prominence at variance with reality and common sense not to mention decency. Both rail against the media and dismiss inconvenient news about them as fake. Both have their idiot legions of admirers who believe everything they say and accept no criticism of their dear leader. Both are apologists for extremists and racists. Both seem to be friends of Russia for no very obvious reason.

And now both use the law to silence criticism. Apparently Chauncey, the great man of the people and believer, supposedly, in democracy and debate has instructed solicitors to try and shut up anyone who writes about him and his Communist sympathies in much the same way that Trump has spent his career silencing people who cannot afford lawyers throughout his career. It's almost as if Chauncey has something to fear from this story you might imagine.

Chauncey is not a spy, nobody seriously thinks that he is; he is too stupid to be a spy. But he also didn't know anything worth knowing that the spies didn't already know.  The authorities in this country knew his sympathies and would never have entrusted him with secrets anyway. They probably wouldn't in the increasingly unlikely event that he ever wins an election. He would be like a real world example of Chris Mullins' A Very British Coup. But if he ever were in the position to know secrets he would be like an insider version of Julian Assange. He would not hesitate to disseminate the information far and wide. This doesn't make him a traitor per se, merely a caitiff. Or, if his solicitors prefer, a very credulous, very stupid, deranged believer in something as incoherent, nebulous and naive as his strange hybrid internationalist socialism. It also makes him extraordinarily dangerous, because our enemies would play him with the same aplomb that they are playing Donald Trump.



But even if we accept that Chauncey's motivations were just juvenile and purblind they are symptomatic of the left's refusal to look at the evidence of their own eyes for fear of learning something inconvenient to their quasi-religious belief system. They have their beliefs, usually created in their heads during their teenage years or as a product of their bourgeois commie upbringing and they never ever deviate from them. That is why Chauncey always sides with this country's enemies and even holidays in them whilst ignoring their worst excesses. It requires such a level of obtuseness as would make it comical if he were still on the backbenches. It is probably why the Labour Party tolerated him and his serial rebelliousness all of those years. It's only Jeremy, they used to say, he's harmless. Now look at him. He is the titular leader of a movement that shoves women away from podiums for fear of losing a vote, bullies a council leader out of post for the offence of wanting to build homes for the poor in a manner that is insufficiently ideologically pure and tolerates anti-Semitism amongst his core whilst dissembling frantically whenever challenged about it. Remind you of anyone?

And all of this is bad enough on its own, until you listen to some of his policies. Well actually they are not policies at all. Marxist Labour tried policy during the election campaign and got their fingers burnt. Now they just identify problems and injustices and offer to solve them with age old leftist ideas that are entirely unrelated to the identified problem. For instance nationalisation of the utilities and railways would not solve any of the problems of those disparate industries such as they are. Our creaking railways are problematic because they are trying to undo decades of underinvestment whilst carrying more and more passengers and in the teeth of chronic levels of industrial unrest as unions seek to preserve in aspic ancient jobs the industry no longer needs. The utility companies are mostly efficiently run and hugely profitable. There is competition, but not nearly enough, largely because of consumer indolence and opaque pricing. The solution to all of these problems is smarter regulation or less regulation, not the ultimate in over regulation: nationalisation, the only beneficiaries of which would be the unions and the staff who would have their jobs guaranteed and underwritten by the taxpayer, would hold us all to ransom for ever higher pay and this would be paid for by more underinvestment.



And then there is Chauncey's attitude to the City of London and banking in general. Oh how the left loves to hate the City. Why? Because bankers make lots and lots of money. The left really hates rich people. It doesn't matter that they pay lots and lots of tax and that finance is one of this country's most successful industries, they hate it because the see it as parasitical. That is a typically reductive and sophomoric attitude to something that actually is part of what has helped make this country wealthy and is one reason why Europe will have to do a deal with us over Brexit. The City is part of what gives us economic clout. It makes finance cheaper and allows it to flourish and prosper. Without the City and the money it raises there would be fewer jobs and less innovation. Yet all that Chauncey sees is that they don't make anything, which coming from someone who has never done a productive day's work in his life other than on his allotment that is rich indeed, richer than a boardroom full of investment bankers.

The speech was barmy. It was loony left. Chauncey and co live in a world of smokestacks and industry that simply doesn't exist anymore, imagining that these jobs have somehow disappeared because of the City of London rather than because of international competition and because people were priced out of their jobs thanks to union intransigence, bad management and poor workmanship. These jobs were starting to disappear as far back as the 1970s. Thankfully the Thatcher government had the good sense to give free rein to the City, to allow it to expand and prosper. In so doing the Tories created an industry at which this country excels. Without the taxes paid by the City we would be bankrupt. Yet Chauncey idiotically imagines that he would be able to control it and harness it and bend it to his will. What would actually happen is that he would simply drive it abroad and impoverish us all. That is the speciality of socialism.

And this facile view of the world is something else this dull, distrait little man has in common with Donald Trump. They both exist in a past that no longer exists and never really existed. Chauncey claims that he would bend the City to do the will of the people. That is what they always say at first. What he means is that he would bend it to the will of people like him, people with no imagination, no historical knowledge, no economic knowledge all made up for with endless petty jealousies and ill informed prejudices. Democratic control, they dishonestly call it. Yet as Labour keeps demonstrating, it is a peculiar kind of democracy that silences dissent, is intolerant of all conflicting opinion and seeks to impose its will and substitutes it for the will of the people. Ultimately he doesn't give a damn about the people of course. He and his ilk don't when push comes to shove. If they did they wouldn't have holidayed in Communist dictatorships and consorted with spies from those dictatorships, even if those spies considered them to be not very useful idiots.

Chauncey isn't a spy. But he is a class traitor.



 

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are published at the absolute discretion of the owner of this blog, but there is a general presumption towards publication. This is a free speech blog.