Friday, 26 April 2013

Socialists Embarrassed About Dawkins

I have just read the worst sentence it is possible to write in English, and it was of course in The Guardian.
"This doesn't make him [Prof Richard Dawkins] unusually hypocritical. It just means that he thinks the same way as people who believe stories that are differently ridiculous to his –"

Differently ridiculous? Please. Even if you don't know that things are different FROM, not different TO, others things, you could at least shun the atrocity of applying an adverb to an adjective. But to suppose awareness of all that would be to pre-suppose the article, or the whole newspaper, was written by educated people.
It's the Grauniad, so what would you expect? The tangled grammar and the tangled logic go hand in hand. When Western writers expose harrowing oppression and shocking injustice in America, that's fine, but when Asian writers expose ditto in an Asian, worst of all a Muslim, country, they are denounced by pickle-headed lefties worrying about "Orientalism". They are desperate to be PC and find a female Muslim author to applaud, but when by writing at all she proves she is too assertive for her culture, they are in a fix. How dare they criticise those cultures and thereby justify the invasion of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the French burka ban?
It must be so awful to be a leftie and fraught with contradictions like that.
         Now Guardianistas are getting angry with Richard Dawkins because he doesn't believe in winged horses taking people up to heaven. They never get angry with him or other God-bashers for ridiculing Christian myths and miracles. Dawkins is not a very sophisticated interpreter of ancient texts, such as the Bible. Trained as a scientist, he simply lacks the necessary linguistic and critical skills. Nevertheless he is entitled to his opinions. When a winged horse turns up to argue with him, that would merit a page in a national newspaper, but calling him rude certainly does not. Every single day of the week, leftie God-bashers use all the most contemptuous terms they can dredge up for Christians and Jews  - "Zionists", "fundamentalists", "Red-necks", "Bible-belt right-wing extremists"  - but they still insist that to disbelieve in a winged horse is racist, insensitive and embarrassing. What they suffer from is a kind of cultural masochism, an insistence that everything Western must be talked down, rubbished and discarded.
        Every day the Guardian publishes outrageous lies about UKIP and its members. Most of these have absolutely no basis in evidence whatsoever. They are just made up. The left-wing press invents tittle-tattle and then copies it from one place to another like one of those dire chain letters. Now that the County Council elections are approaching and the UKIP ratings in the polls are notably higher than ever before, the lefties are getting desperate. They are resorting to new smear campaigns and some of these even involve hacking and impersonation. I have no doubt at all that this is what happened in the case of Anne-Marie Crampton. Over the past few months, a survey carried out for the party found dozens of fake profiles and duplicated identities masquerading as UKIP pages or members on Facebook and the Internet. When the identities are not false, the lefties are adept at twisting, misquoting and misrepresenting what anyone has actually said. They take pride in this. "Jack and Jill went up the hill" would appear in the socialist press as "Jack called Jill a dirty n---er and Jill called Jack a filthy qu--r. These sick rants were reported to the police who arrested them both for hate speech."
       One minute the left-wingers are accusing UKIP of being "Zionist" and the next minute they are accusing it of being "anti-semitic"  - unaware that we have actually got one Jewish MEP. Currently the Guardian is repeating the tired old allegation that there are links between UKIP and the BNP. Actually the BNP is a socialist party and nobody who has ever belonged to it is admitted into UKIP.
 They really can't make sense, can they?
           Can't the Guardian be differently ridiculous for a change?

No comments:

Post a Comment