A Few Left Wing Moral Contradictions

Potemkin Fakes

Left wing ideologues tend to hate people with money.  More accurately they hate other people with money, particularly if the selfsame other people have more moolah than they. The ratiocination to arrive at this rather sophisticated position is complex and turgid.  It runs like this: rich people can only become rich by exploiting the weak and the dispossessed.  Therefore, their wealth is evidence of immoral usury.  Moreover, it proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Sophisticated reasoning.

Now of course when left wing folk manage to garner some money of their own, their money is righteous (by definition).  Their money has been earned whilst they have been standing up for the poor and downtrodden, so their money is clean, laundered money.  Everybody else's is corrupt and evil--presumably because it was earned in trade, rather than from taxpayer funded salaries paid out to politicians.  A classic example was provided by the last Labour administration in New Zealand.
  The Labour Finance Minister of the time railed against "rich pricks" (in New Zealand, colourful, crude public language is considered the virtue of an intellectual sophisticate), whilst his boss, the Prime Minister, Helen Clark was actually a millionaire.  But in the binary leftist worldview, her wealth was righteous and moral because it was somehow garnered whilst not exploiting the poor. Everyone else's wealth is to be sneered at because it is dirty money.


But there remains a sure-fire way for the money of rich exploiters to be laundered into lily white righteous moolah.  This magical laundry process works instantly, as soon as some rich exploiter donates money to a leftist politician.  Instantly, the bad guy becomes good, his sins expiated.  Equally, all those he has exploited and expropriated from along the way to hoarding wealth are somehow restituted (no-one is quite sure how this actually happens).  Moreover, dirty money becomes lily white faster than the laundering of a Columbian drug cartel.

It is not surprising, then, to have seen all left-wing parties cosy up to Kim Dotcom--a self-styled plutocrat mogul--who is busily trying to buy his way into a position of political influence in New Zealand (primarily, it seems, to block his extradition to the United States to face indictment on reasonably serious charges.)  He has plenty of dance partners.  Like lemmings the left-wing parties have trooped out to his plutocrat mansion for one-on-one discussions: the Greens, New Zealand First (choke, choke), and even the Mana Party, currently the closest political manifestation of Trotskyitism on the political scene.  How can they compromise themselves so?  Easy.  As soon as Dotcom's moolah hits a left-wing politician's bank account, Dotcom's soul will spring from purgatory, and his money will be lily-white.

The current crop of left-wing politicians and political parties are to be despised.  All of them to man, woman and transgendered ardently support political parties being funded by taxpayers.  But when the taxpayers recently revolted against such a blatant rort, they have all been reduced to polishing up their begging bowls whilst squatting outside the mansions of evil rich people.  The shame of it all.

But herein lies a deeper malaise.  In all the back rooms of the left-wing political parties you can hear the teeth grinding incessantly.  The reason little electoral traction can be found is due to not having money.  If only they had more money, the things they would be able to do!  The advertising, the events, the swishy cars--voters would flock to them.  In reality, none of them want to put in the hard yards of building a political party from the ground up--which requires, dare we say it, hard work and self-sacrifice and discipline and patience.  Not one of them is prepared to live in self-imposed poverty, donating every spare cent to the cause.  None of them want to build a political party which will take decades, if not generations of effort.  

They want instant self-gratification.  To achieve it, they want other peoples' money.  They are up for sale.

We conclude with an illustration of the disease.  Trotskyite Mana cosying up to filthy-rich capitalist in exchange for some moolah--(as advocated on Facebook by Mana's press secretary:

Guys, MANA DOTCOM!
Ok so we would be helping a fat white rich prick with a bunch of money, but it would obviously help MANA to! [sic] I'm not picking a side, just wanna be clear! The parties would not merge, we would share a list, and guaranteed MANA would have the top spots to start! If we did it, the difference could be 2 or 3 MANA MPs, and we remain our own party! It's not all doom and gloom ! Could be the difference of having say John Minto and Te Hamua Shane Nikora in the House! Didn't mention Annette Sykes cause she will already be there [sic] Doesn't sound that bad when you look at it like that aye?

Some party faithful appear to have a different view.

Niki O'Connor: What has his skin colour got to do with it?? Imagine the uproar if that was reversed!!

Greig Wilson:  It sounds bad to me.

Paul Rose: I have a lot of respect for Hone and the Mana Party. That would vanish instantly if this loony idea came to fruition. It's also not really keeping within the spirit of MMP.
 
Marion Peka:  Mana will come off as looking very desperate. Sad really.

David Gurney: You have got to be kidding!

Ebony Sullivan: Dont do it... please hes another john keys but worse... hmble your guys self and partner up wif maori you go to dotcom im out sori bt ur party would b his bitch seen it to many times.. better to lose honourably than to win disgracefully.

It's Lenin versus Trotsky all over again.  What a hoot.  What a disgrace.