Utter Bilge

The Devil’s Kitchen is entertaining, but repeatedly talks utter shit. The latest example of this is his post titled Michael Foot: bollocks (from LibCon).

This is all about how wonderful it is that an old man has died.

Look, one doesn’t want to come over as too curmudgeonly, but why this sudden outpouring of gushing tributes now the silly sod’s dead? Here’s Iain Dale, for instance…

Michael Foot has died at the ripe old age of 96. Whatever one’s politics, he was a true political great.

What. The. Fuck?

The post even begins badly. Because he clearly does want to come over as curmudgeonly. Maybe a little controversial and with a sense of “look mummy, look! Look how risque I’m being!”

Even the swearing is somewhat superfluous, even for DK. “Top politics blogger blogs on dead politician?” What. The. Fuck. Indeed.

Now I could use some weasel words like “he’s entitled to his view” but I don’t think liberals or leftists should stay silent. DK is an idiot and he must be reminded of this regularly.

I know what our thinking. After this dreadful introduction can the post get any worse?

Joseph Stalin has died at the ripe old age of 75. Whatever one’s politics, he was a true political great.

Yes. But at least he didn’t…

Adolph Hitler has died at the tragically young age of 56. Whatever one’s politics, he was a true political great.

Oh, he did.

So we’re half way through and he’s already gone Godwin and misunderstood what it is that made Hitler and Stalin unpopular.

Murder DK, that’s why they’re not popular. Whatever one’s politics Stalin and Hitler still killed fucking millions of people. Foot… wrote and spoke well?

DK goes on to approvingly quote the The Nameless Libertarian.

Foot was a man of deep principle and passionate idealism.

Of course, what Foot believed in was abject nonsense. It was the sort of cliched left-wing bilge that should be abandoned once someone moves beyond the naive surroundings of student union politics. His ideas were soundly – and rightly – rejected by the British people in 1983.

The Nameless Libertarian calls Foot wrong but does so respectfully. But even here both DK and he are wrong. In 1983 8,456,934 people voted for “the longest suicide note in history”, hardly soundly rejected.

DK’s not being vindictive, oh no. It is DK’s commitment to ideas, values and politic that are the only reason he’ll be dancing on this dead man’s grave.

Michael Foot was not only a stupid man, but an evil one too.

The only analogue for the left in Britain is Margaret Thatcher. But when people write posts like DK’s after she pops her clogs it won’t be because she was a monetarist, it will be because she helped ruin their father’s, uncle’s and friend’s lives.

To DK praising a socialist is tantamount to praising the architect of the Final Solution, the Cultural Revolution or the dissolution of the Kulaks as a class.

By this logic even George Orwell or Albert Einstein are worthy or abrogation.

When you hate Einstein and Orwell and agree with Richard Littlejohn something might be wrong with your world view, re-evaluate DK or get used to the fact that you will never change the world in anyway you want.

UPDATE: More stuff insulting DK here.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Utter Bilge

  1. “look mummy, look! Look how risque I’m being!”

    Spot on. Pretty much mirrors my thoughts on the Devil from the get go.

  2. I like it when he steps off his home territory & tries to justify himself in reasonable terms. That’s always the funniest bit. With any luck he’ll turn up here or at Liberal Conspiracy, etc.

  3. Well, I appreciate that millions of people voted for Labour in 1983, but when you think about it, 8,456,934 from a population of 56,377,000 is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Foot era Labour party. Particularly when you consider their share of the vote was 9.3% less than 1979, when they were struggling to defend their policies in the Winter of Discontent. Sure, the rise of SDP helped to create the precipitous decline in the Labour vote from ’79 to ’83, but the creation of the SDP was, in part, a result of the drift of the Labour to the Left, and the ideological terrain of Michael Foot.

    For what it is worth, I think Foot was an honourable chap, but I do believe that, had his policies been implemented, they would have damaged freedom in this country. Despite his good intentions, I think that his policies would have been just as damaging as those of Thatcher, albeit it in a different way and impacting on different people. And I do believe that his view were not only rejected by the British people, but also by the former Labour members who practically guaranteed a Tory victory in ’83 by forming the SDP.

    1. Well 8 million was about half what Thatch got, so I understand our point entirely.

      Of course it was a khaki election but I don’t think there was a ringing endorsement for Foots manifesto. There’s also a degree of tribalism in those votes.

      I don’t think “soundly rejected” gets the emphasis right. “Surprisingly positive about one of the most left wing manifestos ever put before anyone.”

      The policies weren’t right, but then I’d probably support them over the SDP-Liberals and Tories.

  4. I have to take issue that the 8.5m votes for Labour in ’83 were all fully informed and unanimously supportive of the manifesto as presented.

    It was still bloc votes in Labour back then which was largely the reason why militant remained so popular among the activists – it meant the party was riven between the platform and the floor.

    So whatever the range of reasons why 8.5m people voted for the Labour candidates in ’83 it was not on account of the manifesto. In fact I think it would be more than fair (err, blazingly obvious) to say a large proportion voted negatively for Labour as a vote against Thatcher.

    After all this was the zenith of the era of false choices arising from ideological confrontation which would continue until the gang of four broke away.

    So I can agree with you calling out DK on his ideological oppositions, but I’ll offer the warning not to fall into the trap of submitting to them yourself. Disagreeing with DK in this instance does not mean supporting what Foot stood for and nor should it.

    However I will add that I think it is a sad day when any politician who is committed to oppose the principle of the use of force dies.

    1. We left are not evil.

      And with respect to the (proven in court) libellous and false claims you later refer to; I don’t think it does you any good to use this as evidence of how baseless and immoral the left is compared to the right.

  5. DK,
    the reason you don’t speak ill of the dead is that you will have no control over those who outlive you and they will be inclined to behave unto you etc which just perpetuates a vicious circle.

    Criticise, by all means, but don’t attack on baseless partisan or ideological motives – as that article does. Moore writes pure supposition and innuendo to play to the preconceptions and prejudices of his grateful audience (among whom you anxiously count yourself).

    Those allegations are as old as the hills and there is no more evidence to back them up now as there was then. I won’t say it is as cleancut as an outright smear or that Foot was Philby’s contact, but instead that it is absolutely dishonest to treat rumour as gospel – just as it is to make unsubstantiated inferences which cannot be proved to exist in any reality.

    Anyone who does only raises questions about their own judgement. So unless you have any new information to bring to the table consider yourself condemned by your own mouth.

    If you want to ask a deeper question, ask ‘is there any currency which hasn’t been dipped in blood and drawn from suffering?’ Now see how easily it all washes from your own hands.

    I also think you miss the supreme irony in the ‘useful idiots’ line. After all Lenin’s victory was only temporary, so you might also ask, who was more useful to whom?

    Foot may have had some bolts in his head when it came to repeating his personal dogmas, but he did make significant valuable contributions to a vast range of subjects – and it is the fact and the weight of the sum of his contribution which is recognised in his passing, not the recontextualisation of each individual part of it all to today’s circumstances.

    I specifically don’t call myself a socialist at least partly on account of Michael Foot’s adoption of the term and what he meant by it, so consider the possibility that he has been as much the architect of the downfall you’d personally wish to hasten as anybody else – of which I can only imagine you’d be grateful!

    So were we now to write your obituary, DK, what would it be? Lacking in judgement, lacking in grace and lacking in gratitude?

    You still have time to improve.

  6. Oranjepan,

    You will note the “apparently” in my reporting of Moore’s assertions.

    “So were we now to write your obituary, DK, what would it be? Lacking in judgement, lacking in grace and lacking in gratitude?”

    Gratitude? To whom should I owe this gratitude? To you? To Foot?

    Still, at least no one can say that I was a socialist, eh?

    DK

  7. I’d just like to say that Chris Mounsey has really convinced me with his arguments. I’m joining LPUK today. Can’t wait for him to lead us to victory. How could we possibly fail to get popular acclaim?

  8. DK,
    That’s a cheap get out and it doesn’t the wool over anyone’s eyes. If you hadn’t intended to make the implication then you wouldn’t have raised it.

    I also find it odd that you’re prepared to cheapen yourself further by advertising your ignorant outlook in requiring an object to be specified (surely people with liberated minds also have some imagination).

    But clearly nobody anywhere has been worthy of your gratitude. Ever. At all. Not those rare few who came before you and not even those who dedicated their lives to the search for truth.

    Personally I am deeply grateful to you, in equal part as everyone else, as I know you’ve not got bad intentions. But then it’s your choice, so it’s up to you.

  9. “the reason you don’t speak ill of the dead is that you will have no control over those who outlive you and they will be inclined to behave unto you etc which just perpetuates a vicious circle.”

    No, not really.

    You don’t speak ill of the very recently dead. The traditional wait is between death bed and being loaded into the grave.

    You can pick and choose your reason….perhaps it’s not all that nice to be reminding everyone of what a cunt A, B or C was while the widow (or kiddies, pooch, whatever) is staring around wide eyed at the destruction of their world. Or a belief that the sould doesn’t start its journey until hte body is buried and the priest has said the words….bit off to leave Charlie with his last memories of Earth you reminding everyone what a cunt he was.

    Or it could even be that hearing is the last of the senses to go and so no one really wants to leave Charlie with those ringing denunciations as the last things he hears as the system shuts down.

    But once buried, it’s always been considered fair game to tell the truth. Hostilities only cease for that interregnum.

    1. Yeah, I wouldn’t have much of a problem if DK had been slightly less vitriolic slightly later.

      Perhaps in a week or two, and perhaps without comparing him to Hitler. That I’d reckon wouldn’t have annoyed me quite so much.

  10. michael foot? see oleg gordievsky.

    as to DK – he desires small government, a minimal state apparatus, personal freedom and the responsibility that goes with it. what’s not to like about that?

    1. Arf?

      See lies published in a paper subsequently successfully sued for libel for aforementioned lies?

      Wow… I’m gobsmacked, what wonderful logic and piercing insight.

      There’s lots I agree with DK on. That’s why I think it’s worth writing posts like this. Old Holborn is beyond redemption, with DK there’s a chance.

  11. Left Outside is an utter moron.
    He has missed the point of what DK was saying and done the usual trick of cutting and pasting parts of DKs posts out of context. Instead of actualy coming up with a counter argument he has done the usual leftist trick of personal attacks and stupid.

    Socialism is a suger coated poison that leads to human suffering time and again. Solutions to human problems cannot be solved by narrow minded thinking or wishing reality was different.

    1. Hehe… I take it you’re a leftist then james?

      Left Outside is an utter moron…instead of actualy coming up with a counter argument he has done the usual leftist trick of personal attacks and stupid.

      Its also not out of context, I’ve quoted nearly the whole post, there’s at least 75% here in block quotes.

      Nice try.

Comments are closed.