The S-Files

Socialism's Fetish with "Deep Pockets"

Contra Celsum feels compelled to nominates Laila Harre for an S-Award

Laila Harre is a union senior manager and a long time militant for left-wing Fabian socialist causes.

Citation:

In a recent radio interview, Laila Harre acknowledged that she had underestimated the nation-wide opposition to Susan Bradford's, and now the Parliament's, “Ban-the-Smack” Act. Like all genuine religious acolytes, she feels the need in this instance to confess her sins. She contritely acknowledged in the radio broadcast, in the face of persistent and widespread public aversion to the Act, that, “we didn't know the smacking lobby had such deep pockets.” [Hat Tip: Half Done] And the rest of the world is left scratching its head, politely asking, “Pardon? Which planet did you say you were from?”

In that flash of religious fervour, Mz Harre purified her soul with a standard liturgical confession reflecting socialism's catechism that the whole world turns around money. Here is the materialistic myopia of the Left on grand display. Here is the Iscariotist ethic of socialism in bright lights. Like Judas of old, the socialist ethic is to profess concern for the poor, while the real motive is a perpetual lust and desire for (other peoples') money.

Socialists have a fetish about money. Money and conspiracy theories. It runs something like this. People who have money are evil. They use their money as a tool of power to exploit and oppress the disadvantaged. Socialists stand up for the disadvantaged. Therefore people with money are more than our opponents; because they are evil, they are to be regarded as enemies.

But, socialist realism demands that we acknowledge that money represents power. Therefore, if we, the defenders of the poor and oppressed are to capture and maintain power, we have to get money. Once we have money we will be able to fight fire with fire. Our cannons will be as big as theirs. However, money in our hands is not evil, for we are good, and we know how to use money properly—for the good of the weak and poor and anyone else who will support us politically.

Part two of the socialist catechism runs like this: our opponents are funded by and represent the interests of evil money, otherwise they would support us. The catechism goes on to expound as follows: since money is evil and those who possess it have dark souls and use their money to conspire against us and our supporters, it follows that if any issue which we socialists oppose gains traction in the hearts and minds of our former supporters (in spite of our opposition) then it must only be due to wealthy evil conspirators using their money against us by bribing and seducing the hearts of the poor and weak to oppose our views.

Thus Harre, naturally, automatically, mindlessly, without thinking, believes that 80% of the population only stubbornly continue to oppose the anti-smacking Act because they have been bought off by the dark interests of money. The effect of widespread public opposition to the benighted Act has been caused by conspiratorial, dark, monied, deep pockets who have seduced the simple dears over to the dark side.

Thus, the world view of socialism. Behind every expression of opposition to their views they see the dark conspiracy of the monied class. Helen Clark saw evil money at work in the Exclusive Brethren campaign conspiring to undermine her saintliness. Socialist Labour saw (and still see) evil American money behind (semi-socialist) National's rising electoral support.

Historians will adjudge Clark as the fool who feared shadows, leading her to push through the uber-superstitious Electoral Finance Act in the vain attempt to cut off her opponents from the feared largesse of monied conspirators, all the while attempting to reserve the money of the taxpayers for herself. But in the course of her crusade she cut off her own financial nose to spite her political face—thus contributing to the ignominy of her forthcoming electoral oblivion, all the more bitter because it was largely self-inflicted. But socialists like Harre and Clark are hopelessly imprisoned in their religous world view. They cannot help themselves.

Their fear, their ignorance, their simplistic antiquarian view of the world leads them to trip over themselves. Clark, Bradford, Harre, Cullen all share the same world-view, the same myopic, ignorant, ante-diluvian view of the world. The most monstrous insult they can think to utter is to declare an opponent a “person of deep pockets” or a “rich prick”. Then, watch them perform the augury of socialism swirling mists of conspiracies before an audience captivated only in their own antiquarian imagination. Meanwhile, they writhe, legislate, fulminate, and conspire in such a way that in the eyes of the populace their odium grows by the day.

The ultimate insult to the weak, the disadvantaged, the poor, and the masses represented by Harre and her ilk is their belief that ordinary people cannot think for themselves. They cannot have opinions of their own—unless, of course, they are the opinions they want them to have, the opinions of which they approve. So, those who oppose the “ban-the-smack Act” in Harre's strange and exotic world view are mere simpletons, whose views and opinions have been manipulated and bought by “deep pocket” money.

Socialists have always been paternalistic overlords who presume to know what is in the best interests of others. The people they claim to represent are not able, nor allowed, to think for themselves. Socialists represent the epitome of vain hubris and arrogance. That is why doctrinaire socialists inevitably integrate into the void, consumed by their lust for money and power.

For socialists, materialists all, money represents the ultimate power. They lust after it , all their attention is fixated on it: in their warped view, coin and command are one and the same. Benighted fools.

Laila Harre: S-Award, Class II, for actions that are Stupid, Short Sighted and Stupefied