This is going to be about Iraq, but I have to get this off my chest, as I borrowed part of the headline from a major 1970s/80s British TV series…..
Did anybody find “Fawlty Towers” (don’t mention the war!) as excruciating, embarrassing and unfunny, in the way only John Cleese can be unfunny, as I did? Please discuss, for I need help, and I feel so terribly, terribly left out of something clearly very universal here where “British” modern humour is concerned. Even though he drove a Rover 2000, I can’t love the man or especially his humour. (Perhaps, tell it not in Gath, I’m not really a libertarian….? Not THAT sort, anyway…? ….[YOU know!…he DOESN’T LAUGH at MONTY PYTHON STUFF…….!!!] )
And I found “Life of Brian” even worse – possibly I was offended to religious reasons, but I watched in in the company of several “English Old Catholics” who all found it an uproarious hoot, and I was frankly mystified.
I have been wondering quietly over the last couple of weeks and months about Iraq. As everybody here knows, I have never ever failed to oppose, often vociferously, those who said we (which is to say “The West”, which is to say in practice, Britain and our assistant the USA, plus any Anglosphere nations such as Poland who wanted to come along) had no business there.
The probability that, providing whichever Gramsco-Marxian succeeds Bush as our President in 2009 pursues what Petraeus has been doing, Iraq will finally succeed as a project, is high. this was noted today on Kerplunk, a sensible Australian blog. While the main point of the post was about the “West’s” mediarati dis-reporting success in Iraq, the blogger also wondered why the “left” don’t want people to be successful and free. Well, they’d have no job, and would have to break stones or fill shleves like proper people do, as I opined there:-
First of all, thank you for a sensible and grand blog. I have always particularly admired your “Ten Signs that you’re a Moral idiot” essay. It ought to be resyndicated lots.
The left does not want nations, any nations at all, to be successful and free. Why?
Because the very fact of freedom, coupled with success or even relative failure – and most nations fail, just like people – utterly negates any premise that the left (Nazis or other types of left-wing-communists, or “Trotzky-ists” (whatever those may have been) Marxists, Maoists, Polpotists, Sartristas and the like) has any reason for existence, other than in “public-sector” jobs as a bureaucracy.
This latter loophole is the only way they can get “gainful” (yay!) “employment” inside “advanced” (which is broadly to say, liberal capitalist) nations which are peculiarly resistent happily to armed or subversive revolution on the Leninist model.
The “left” is not Mankind’s solution: it is the problem, and the main problem. The uncomputable number of deaths and individual sorrow, which it and its musings have caused, is probably water under a bridge by now…but the scenario in former Warsaw Pact countries now liberated – after a fashion – from pre-capitlist barbarism, shows what can be done with little, even half-heartedly, in a very little time.
No. The “left” does not want you – or anybody – to be lifted out of atavistic misery and servility to barbarous, unsocialised beasts masquerading as human beings. Once everybody is free, and has no need to listen to the buggers, they are f****d. Terminally. Good.
That is why they are so, so very very pissed off about Iraq and the results.