Reply to Lew Stoddart at Kiwipolitico and the Left's cynical view of what it is to be human, and free ...

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Tue, 2011-11-08 19:51

Before I start, something nice and fluffy. Unlike Red Alert, where Totalitarian Trev has banned me, and unlike The Standard that couldn’t stand the white light of liberty shining on them either, Lew Stoddart has allowed up every comment I have made, including hopefully this one, to his post (discussed below), which this piece is about: I’ll give you that Lew, then I’ll serve you this …

Lew is one of those Lefties, like Trotter, who sees himself as an intellectual, and looks haughtily down on we ‘little people’ who want our liberty from the likes of him, and who always arrogantly speaks for ‘humanity’ as if it’s some sort of aggregate they can treat collectively, just as tyrants do. He put up this post of mine on his Kiwipolitico blog last night simply in order to belittle it, and its, quote, ‘Randoid’ author. Sneeringly comparing my piece to the satire of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal – eighteenth century satire being apt in his case as I shall show soon – he finds my piece wanting, it’s not satire, according to him, and he finds it a jolly old laugh that a Randoid is suggesting a new tax.

Oh dear.

You have completely missed, Lew, the point of my post which was in the last paragraph:


There will be a hue and cry, obviously: babies for the rich only, Occupiers in maternity wards, all founded on the protest that governments should not decide such important lifestyle choices as who has babies and who doesn't. The last of which I entirely agree with, whether it be via a subsidy or a tax, for therein lies my cunning plan

My piece was about the role of the State in our lives, and that my belief is it is no more appropriate the State taxes birth as subsidises it which you support – and it’s a nonsense that you are incensed with one, but not the other. The minute the State gets involved in such lifestyle choices it distorts healthy human relations, namely, that in the 21st century the only reason for having a child is natural love and affection. Compare this to the vile commenters to his thread who wheel out all the old BS that I would let children starve to death, and have mothers prostitute themselves to feed their children. That is beyond contempt: you are the one representing the society of the barbarian that incentivizes children born into poverty, Lew, I’m the one representing a civilised classical liberalism and finally, an enlightenment. And it gets much worse.

Though before moving to that, note well: I stand for the non-initiation of force – I am the only one on Lew’s thread that stands precisely for the State not being able to sterilise women, et al, that the nasties (ht Whaleoil) on that thread attribute to freedom lovers. It is the brute Left that always resorts to force. They are so unaware of their modus operandi it infuriates me with frustration.

But returning to my main point. It is significant in this piece I have given two time frames, the eighteenth century and the twenty first. I have debated this topic before with Lew, women and childbirth, and quoting Lew from Twitter (reinforcing the assumptions of this post of his at how solo mother of five and solo mother of eight on the TV the last two nights can have such bad judgment):

LewStoddart Lew
No, but there are powerful biological and cultural imperatives in play. History is pretty clear on that score.

And, wait for it:

LewStoddart Lew
Humans *are* apes. They -- we -- literally *are* apes. Not magical transcendent enlightened beings. We are apes.

Both of these tweets were made as part of an exchange on October 13 of this year.

You see, it’s not just sub-text. Lew, the Left, believe mother of eight and mother of five, all their children whom are being brought up by the taxpayer as neither mother has prospects, are incapable of family planning. It’s a patronizing, misogynist view of woman as a mere reproductive organ, not responsible for her body. Thus, ‘humanity’, as Lew would say, must be forced not only to look after the ‘wee dears’, but to carry on subsidizing child after child after child, because they apparently can’t stop them. Such a view of humanity, of women, is every bit as abhorrent and misguided as on the other end of the spectrum in which those doddering old fool Conservatives like Burnsy on this site, believe the State must outlaw abortion and euthanasia. The central theme is we are animals, with no volition, who can’t be responsible for ourselves.

Both sides, Lew and Burnsy, Left and Conservative Right, represent eighteenth century views of woman. They are both haters, in one way or another. All I want is my freedom from them, and a world where children are born to loving families that want them. That’s the end to poverty, which is far more complex than just financial. Note that: poverty is not just a matter of dollars, Lew, there’s what I might call a poverty of outlook that is the central viewpoint of the Left, it’s a cynicism that’s disgusting.

Finally, would I let children starve? No, it is deeply, deeply offensive to imply I would you nasty snots at Kiwipolitico who simply because I believe in liberty, accuse me of every evil conducted by the all-powerful State over the last one hundred years, the State that you support. And now I’m going to work to pay the taxes to bring up the children of two very irresponsible women.


( categories: )

Typo alert

Mark Hubbard's picture

'sterilise' not 'steralise'.

I hate doing that, but can't fix without losing the blue sticky Smiling

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.