Monday, December 14, 2009

Blair Publicly Displays Honest Disdain The Ruling Elite Has On The Poor

I often thought it funny, the left-wing complains about the right-wing capitalist policies big business push through government and the right-wing complains about the left-wing socialist policies liberal-elites push through government. The right-wing will fire back that those big business policies do not represent capitalism and are more in light with fascism or even socialism (not real capitalism); the left-wing will fire back that those liberal-elite policies are centrist and capitalist (not real socialism). Mean while, the ruling elites gain more control and we sit here watching, fighting back and forth about definitions. Well, that actually doesn't seem funny.

This paradox has led me to two conclusions: 1. The left/right paradigm is false and distracts the masses and even politically intelligent from the real issues. 2. The ruling elite might have disagreements and factions, but they do not reflect the left/right paradigm. Its more of a disagreement on how to properly control the people and direct them to their own interests, whether via the military industrial complex and war, or via climate change and taxes on CO2.

Despite the apparent disagreements, what I think both sides of the ruling elite do agree on is much more comprehensive. One perspective I'm sure they all share is a complete disdain for poor people as they share no regret for the harm and death their policies give to them.

As Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright did before him, Tony Blair blurted out a completely insensitive comment over the weekend making very clear the disregard the elite have for the people harmed by their policies while making it very clear this man should be put on trial for war crimes. From theRawStory.com:
In the absence of explicit UN approval, Blair justified the war on the basis of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and long-range missiles and its non-compliance with UN weapons inspections, in defiance of numerous UN resolutions.

The alleged chemical and biological weapons were never found, but Blair said he would have gone to war even if he had known they were not there.

"I would still have thought it right to remove him (Saddam Hussein). Obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat," he said.

He added: "It was the notion of him as a threat to the region, of which the development of WMD was obviously one, and because you'd had 12 years of United Nations to and fro on this subject, he used chemical weapons on his own people -- so this was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind."

11 comments:

Chris said...

If you eliminate the left-right taxonomy, you are still left with polarized, opposing views. That, from my perspective, is enough to say that the left-right taxonomy is correct.

Again, Josh, you are living in a bubble.

Josh said...

You are left with a cornucopia of opposing views that are not polarized.

Chris said...

Opposing views = left-right/polarized.

Please use your dictionary more in the future.

Josh said...

Peter Schiff is pro-small government and pro-choice. Left-wing or right-wingÉ

Christopher Furlong: said...

Right-wing, because his main positions are right-wing. The pro-abortion is merely a pawn he uses to convert those who can't think for themselves.

Christopher Furlong: said...

lol, I was going to come back and say that I wasn't pro-abortion, I was pro-choice, but it seems that I was I who fell into the propaganda trap by writing too quickly on the run.

Josh said...

He's pro-legalization of drugs too...left wing or right wing?

Josh said...

See, you throw this right-wing label on him, just like you'd label Sarah Palin right-wing, but they are two completely different individuals with very much opposing views. This is why the right-left dichotomy fails.

Christopher Furlong: said...

Again, overall he is right-wing. He might have chosen a couple of left-wing issues to champion, which he doesn't champion, but those issues are well within his right-wing stance, libertardianism.

The problem here is that you simply do not want to acknowledge the binaries that exist, because you want your perspective to win. That's fine, but it does not make your perspective The Truth.

Palin is far-right, or to be more specific, a Christian conservative. Christian conservatives are to the right of libertarians, but both are firmly on the right of the spectrum.

Josh said...

I don't buy into it. Its clear to me right-wing fascists have more in common with left-wing communists than libertarians, and liberals have more in common with libertarians; the dichotomy exists if you want it to, but it does a gross injustice to the individual.

Its more of a tool pushed onto the people by politicians to divide the people.

Chris said...

"I don't buy into it. Its clear to me right-wing fascists have more in common with left-wing communists than libertarians, and liberals have more in common with libertarians; the dichotomy exists if you want it to, but it does a gross injustice to the individual.

Its more of a tool pushed onto the people by politicians to divide the people."

Nope.

The libertarians are the leftward expression of the rightwing, while the liberals are the leftwing expression of the leftwing. They are both compromise positions. That said, both libertarianisma and conservativism share a body of political values that define them as rightwing. This can not be denied, it is real, and there is nothing Machiavellian about it.

Christian consevatives and libertards share the following values:

1. Private property
2. Freedom
3. Choice
4. Responsibilty
5. Etc

In fact, the only main difference I see between the two is the use of force issue and role of religion in politics. That is it. They are the same thing, but at different positions along the spectrum.