Bit of a change isn’t it?

America must lead the free world – the alternative is chaos
Natalie Nougayrède

The Guardian’s spent the past half century insisting that we must be free of such American leadership, hasn’t it? Not to mention the denial of it being truly free…..

24 comments on “Bit of a change isn’t it?

  1. That was then, this is now. Ultimate proof that for the Left the US can do nothing right – damned if it attempts to lead the world, damned if it pulls up the drawbridge and lets the world go to hell in a handbasket.

  2. Most of the fellow-travellers in the Guardian have spent decades arguing against US hegemony and the “demonisation” of Russia. Some people are just never happy, are they?

  3. Flatcap, you’ve hit the nail on the head.

    These people are “just never happy”. Pretty much explains what is wrong with Lefties. They are a miserable bunch, probably mentally ill.

  4. Natalie Nougayrède? Didn’t we have the same article last week?

    I am beginning to think that Natalie is a masterful trolling effort. It must be the same people behind the constant trolling of Ritchie’s blog.

    So go on, which one of you is it? Steve? Meissen?

  5. Ultimate proof that for the Left the US can do nothing right – damned if it attempts to lead the world, damned if it pulls up the drawbridge and lets the world go to hell in a handbasket.

    I figured this out around the time of the Iraq War:

    1. America is on good terms with Saudi = bad, should cut all ties.
    2. America is on neutral terms with Uzbekistan = bad, should be critical.
    3. America criticises Venezuela = bad, should be less critical.
    4. America is hostile towards Iran = bad, should be less hostile.
    5. America sanctions Iraq = bad, should scrap them.
    6. America bombs Iraq = bad, should consider sanctions instead.

    There isn’t a single policy that America could pursue that wouldn’t have the left criticising them. I’m sure this played some part in Dubya’s decision to start bombing places. Might as well be hung for a sheep, etc.

  6. Cynic

    I’ve known some lefties who were well adjusted individuals, but not many. And I’ve known some righties who were not well adjusted, but not many. Most lefties I’ve known seem to have a reservoir of inchoate anger within (v. Trump Derangement Syndrome). If they are politically active, it seems to be a form of therapy – for their daddy issues, assumed entitlements, sense of inferiority (victimhood = status) or simply life’s disappointments. If they aren’t activists, then they are drinks party virtue-signallers.

    But that’s all ‘anecdata’. Does anyone know of anything worth reading on the psychopathology of leftism?

  7. “But that’s all ‘anecdata’. Does anyone know of anything worth reading on the psychopathology of leftism?”

    Theo, you might try The Evolutionary Psychology behind Politics, by Anonymous Conservative.

    Gotta go, so don’t have the link, but I am sure you can find it, and his blog.

  8. @Theo

    Matches my experience. Funnily enough, the well-adjusted Lefties suddenly became less PC on certain issues once they’d personally experienced a kicking on those issues – almost like they’d learned from experience.

    e.g. one who got screwed over for unpaid bills and then experienced anti-Semitic remarks from minority flatmate. Suddenly became a lot less PC about said culture.

    Another getting harassed by workshy, benefit-scrounging neighbour. Suddenly less sympathetic toward said scroungers.

  9. America must lead the free world

    Doesn’t really understand the concept of ‘free world’, does she.

    Its the free world – we don’t have leaders. Closest we have are example-setters. Both good and bad.

  10. TOBIN

    Thanks very much for the suggested reading. Much appreciated. Unfortunately, I find r/k theory unconvincing – except in such general terms that it ceases to be useful. (But, then, I could be wrong, as my contributions to this blog amply show.)

    I suspect — but I have no proof — that the psychopathology of leftism is to be found in doctrines about child rearing.

  11. Cynic

    “the well-adjusted Lefties suddenly became less PC on certain issues once they’d personally experienced a kicking on those issues – almost like they’d learned from experience.”

    Yes, well expressed. Well adjusted people do learn from experience because they are open to new information. Some lefties, however, are so self-insulated from reality that they imagine that the public sector can only expand – in the public interest, of course.

    Which is why we have a “well-being stream” in the Treasury, FFS!

    https://order-order.com/2017/01/31/256049/

  12. TimN,

    Can I add two general cases to your excellent list?

    Sanctions against Apartheid South Africa = Good, despite ridk of harm to babies
    Sanctions against Iran = Bad, because babies

  13. Like a stroppy teenager who yells “I hate you!” at her parents.

    And like a stroppy teenager, what she’s really looking for is someone else to foot the bill for her. Substitute “lead” with “pay for” and all becomes clear.

    It’s the wog thing: We hate you ‘Mericans, but give us your money so we don’t have to spend our own.

  14. “I suspect — but I have no proof — that the psychopathology of leftism is to be found in doctrines about child rearing.”

    Ditto. I think its children who never grow up into fully autonomous adulthood. They’re always looking for parental figures to cling to.

  15. Am I the only one who calls her Natalie Naugahyde?

    Yesterday it was Minna Salami. Now this. Anyone in the wog lands know how to give a child a name that won’t end up being used in a joke?

  16. “Instead of bringing aid, the Americans bring chaos”. BBC 6 o’clock news reporting on US aid being delivered by US helicopters (which made a tent flap which was used as the visual support for the word “chaos”) from US ships stationed offshore in the aftermath of the 2006 tsunami.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.