#left-wing

People will recommend — at this point even urge me given how bad things have gotten — to take part in left-wing civic engagement of some kind. Alright, that's great and all, but I have a genuine, serious question that I'd like for someone to answer.

What's the point of taking part in left-wing civic engagement to achieve left-wing social change if there is no guarantee/certainty that (a) it will even be achieved or (b) the achievement will even last forever, as it can very easily be weakened, even undone?

I'm not spending any amount of time taking part in these activities to accomplish this goal, only for options A or B to occur. If options A or B were to occur, then any and all efforts having been done to accomplish this goal would be for nothing, right? For me to take part in these efforts, there needs to be a total guarantee/total certainty that left-wing social change will be achieved in the country — preferably in our fucking lifetimes and not in the far distant future — and that said accomplishment will never be weakened or undone by anyone, the Right and/or otherwise. That guarantee/certainty needs to based not on how you feel but based on actual facts, the reality of the situation. And based on the reality of this whole ordeal, it doesn't even seem to really matter if there's an increasing number of people (leftists and otherwise) in the country opposing Trump, his administration, and/or the Right, in general. As long as the Right, including other people (individuals and groups) whose interests align with the Right's interests (specifically capitalists, rich ones and otherwise) continue to have more power and influence than the Left does — which I believe they forever will because of the extreme level of power and influence they have in seemingly everything — then left-wing social change will be next to impossible to accomplish in this country.

The fact that the ideas of the far Left do not work from a practical standpoint is yet another reason that the Left seeks federal power. Federal power mitigates the damage that these ideas do. Control of the money "printing press" means the ability to continually offset and delay the negative consequences of your decisions. When far Left ideas are simply left to function on their own, in cities on the local level, things quickly go awry. Federal power masks the harm. It was actually more federal money (not suitable border policy) that local Democrats like Mayor Eric Adams of New York were looking for recently from the President; money to support their sanctuary city policies. President Biden fortunately opted for a more realistic solution this time, after initially setting the welcome mat which encouraged the original crisis.

The fruit of Left-wing social policies and crime policies can be seen locally in blue cities across the country. But I think that New York is one of the most fascinating examples because there we can see the cause and effect more vividly than we can anywhere else. Each time the city has changed hands politically we have seen the tangible results. Liberals reigned over the city for over 20 years straight throughout the 70's and 80's, presiding over the worse crime wave in its modern history (we're talking murder rates 5 times higher than today). Many of its inner city neighborhoods visually resembled third world countries; President Ronald Reagan was left speechless upon visiting the South Bronx. They are conditions that would not even be tolerated in the city today.

The seismic shift came about when Mayor Rudy Giuliani was elected in the 1990's and remained in power for 8 years. He was followed by Michael Bloomberg who ran as a Republican and kept most of Giuliani's policies in place. The city soon became unrecognizable, but in a good way. New York eventually obtained the reputation of one of "America's safest big cities". Times Square which was once a no man's land after dark became a family spot. But ultimately the first Democrat in years was elected as Mayor in 2014. In just 4 years people were already discussing the deterioration of the city. Today it is a topic of discussion outside of the city.

In the 1970s a right-wing english think-tank published a study of voting patterns which had enormous consequences as they found two main effects, one obvious and the other non-obvious and very important:

People who owned a car, owned property, invested in shares for retirement, voted for right-wing parties far more than people who used public transport, rented housing, had a defined benefit pension. This seems obvious because the former usually have higher income and status than the latter.

This difference however was largely independent of income and status. Particularly important for voting was that people with low income and status would often vote for right-wing parties if they owned very modest cars, property, and tiny investments in shares.

After that study right-wing parties across the world, but primarily in the UK, USA, Australia adopted policies to undermine public transport, rented housing (especially if public), and defined benefit pensions, with various excuses, and to subsidise directly or indirectly car travel, property ownership, share based pension accounts.

Note: with time it turned out that the key element is property ownership but only coupled with a solid expectation of long-term huge property profits redistributed from the lower classes.

"There were even prophetic council house sales by local Tories in the drive to create voters with a Conservative political mentality. As a Tory councillor in Leeds defiantly told Labour opponents in 1926, ‘it is a good thing for people to buy their own houses. They turn Tory directly. We shall go on making Tories and you will be wiped out.’ There is much of the Party history of the twentieth century in that remark."

"bought his council house in Devon in the early 80s for £17,000. When it was valued at £80,000 in 1989, he sold up and used the equity to put towards a £135,000 fisherman’s cottage in St Mawes. Now it’s valued at 1.1m. “I was very grateful to Margaret Thatcher,” he said.¨

These policies are the reason for the enduring appeal of thatcherism/reaganism for many voters who are workers, even if thatcherism/reaganism policies also include cutting wages and salaries and pension and social insurance, because those voters gain much more with property profits than they lose otherwise.

These policies are being implemented with great zeal in the People's Republic of China by the Communist Party of China: almost all social housing in the PRC has been privatized by the CPC, and the CPC has invested massively in promoting car ownership (even if there has also been big investment in public transport, in particular trains).

Now the CPC wants to switch PRC pensions from defined benefit to share investment accounts, as reported by the right-wing USA organization "Council for Foreign Relations":

"Beijing is pushing Chinese citizens to plan for their own retirements. On December 15, Chinese authorities launched a national expansion of their two-year old pilot private pension pilot project. According to the state circular issued jointly by tax, finance, and human resource bureaus, citizens participating in either of the two primary state retirement systems are authorized to open private pension accounts."

The only possible rationale for these moves is that the Communist Party of China has become vigorously anti-socialdemocratic, anti-socialist and anti-communist and intends to create a large base of car, property and share owners committed to thatcherism/reaganism and right-wing policies. China-mainland has been switching to a thatcherite/reaganite system like China-Taiwan, China-HongKong, Singapore, and previously the USA, the UK, etc.; this will also discourage productive investment and greatly increase financial speculation and rentierism.

That is not surprising: my guess is that virtually all the officials of the Communist Party of China own one or more cars and also significant portfolios of properties and shares, and are determined to protect their investments from the possibility of social-democratic, socialist or communist policies, and since they are all educated in marxism they understand well what their class interests are.

Another example of the hit-and-run ad hominem attacks by those who wholeheartedly believe Palestinian terrorist propaganda. Once again, I ask myself why these people can't put their names to their ideas. I put my own Tumblr username to everything I write, and I am capable of engaging in debate with those of the opposite side.

The yes-men for Palestinian terrorists seemingly believe that comments such as "shame on you" and even more obscene abuse will halt me in my tracks and change my opinion. Very rarely do I receive some detailed analysis of what I've said in context, backed by sound refutation.

Furthermore, yes-men for Palestinian terrorists love identity politics. Apparently, the fact that this anonymous hitman is Jewish is supposed to carry some weight. But what, exactly? He or she provides no evidence to support his or her meaningless comment. He or she seems to be convinced that being a Jew and disagreeing with the pro-Israel cause is an unanswerable argument.

It isn't.

Unfortunately for this anonymous troll, a little research would have gone a long way before his or her hit-and-run denunciation. I am a British woman who supports Israel. Unlike the pro-Palestinian side, I don't have to lean on identity politics to make my arguments. I don't constantly tout my nationality and ethnicity in every sentence to manipulate people into agreeing with me. I am capable of defending Israel using facts that people can easily verify for themselves.

Before and since October 7, I have noted a profound difference between those who defend Israel and those who parrot Palestinian terrorist propaganda. We, the pro-Israel side, carefully read what the anti-Israel side says. The anti-Israel side, however, often does not carefully read what we say because they are convinced that it's impossible for us to even have a valid counter-argument, let alone be right. They assume that the most emotionally-laden claims backed with tsunamis of ad hominem attacks are so persuasive that nobody would dare to defend Israel in public afterwards. Judging by how many universities have capitulated to the pro-Palestinian mob, they are right to assume that their tactics often work.

The problem is, such tactics don't work on me. And that is what infuriates the anonymous hit-and-run yes-men for Palestinian terrorists on Tumblr. My refusal to join the mob, and my insistence upon publicising the widely-ignored truth about Palestinian terrorism and the Islamic jihad ideology that breeds it represents a direct threat to their narrative. And that threat isn't based on the fact that I have persuaded millions to think like me. The numbers are usually against those of us who support Israel.

The threat is that what I say shreds the fictitious claims to morality spouted by the pro-Palestinian side. Very often, pro-Palestinian mouthpieces either cannot respond to what I am saying or respond with half-truths and abuse. Some of them try quoting prominent thinkers on their side, but when I am able to disprove much of what has been said, I often hear no response. Many of them, especially the liberals, have never even heard of some of the facts I cite. This despite many of them possessing a university degree.

This shows that the pro-Palestinian cause isn't based on a thorough understanding of the Israeli-Arab conflict. It isn't even based on a thorough understanding of the Palestinians. After all, so many Western yes-men for the Palestinian cause are unaware of what Palestinians actually want, what their media teaches, or of the jihadist incarnation of Islam that they follow. Unaware or don't want to be aware.

The pro-Palestinian cause in the West is based on an overweening belief in one's own innate righteousness, and a desperation to adopt any position that will enhance one's reputation as being "righteous". This is why Western left-wingers and/or liberals on the pro-Palestinian side are so easily seduced by jihadist ideology, which is also based on an overweening belief in self-righteousness, combined with Islamic utopianism and enforced with ruthlessness.

Once we understand that the main driver of the Western pro-Palestinian mouthpiece is a belief in his own righteousness and moral superiority and a pathological desperation to boast of his righteous credentials using token gestures and reciting popular rhetoric, we see why he often believes the best response to counter-arguments is personal abuse.

Left-wingers and liberals in particular (though they are not the only ones) have already made this their modus operandi on other contentious issues, often treating critics with disdain and smearing their reputations, and haughtily dismissing the possibility that said critics might have a valid point. And Islamic fundamentalism applies the smear of heresy to "disbelievers", something many left-wingers and liberals have keenly adopted on the Israel issue (and some others), either because they already believed in such an idea before, or because they find Islamic radicalism and utopianism profoundly attractive.

That's why the sub-human mob of Palestinian beheaders, rapists, mutilators, torturers, kidnappers, looters, and arsonists who poured out of Gaza on October 7 were sanitised and even glorified as 'brave resistance to oppression'. That's why since the terrorist attack, an emboldened faction of the pro-Palestinian side has terrorised Jews worldwide and become more and more Nazi in its rhetoric.

If anyone dares to point out how this "cause" lacks morality and lacks the truth, the edifice of self-righteousness and delusions of persecution that sustain the mindset of a pro-Palestinian will collapse. The very threat makes him panic.

I always found it weird how much the Left seems to dislike Saudi Arabia and highlight its human rights abuses and why the alliance is against American national interest. This is far back as Michael Moore’s documentary Fahreneit 9/11, Vox who did a special on weapons sales to Saudis, Morning Joe which kept calling MBS a butcher, The View after Biden’s visit and Krystal Ball on Breaking Points.

Interestingly these same people always go at pains to say why US should seek peace with Iran and how the government does not represent the American people. When Trump was sabre rattling Iran they said he’d start WW3. It took until the hijab protest angle for them to cover Iran critically. Even Egypt who is an American vassal under El-Sisi gets criticised all the time including by Vox/MSNBC but when the Muslim Brotherhood got in power after the Arab Spring, which is against all sorts of progressive causes, they were never really criticised.

I always get frustrated by how people throw everything to the Left of Trump as "the Left".

Joe Scarborough is nobody's Leftist. He was a far-right wing congressman from Florida in the 90s and voted to impeach Clinton in 98. MSNBC has routinely fired left-wing and Muslim dissenters to the Mainstream Washington politics (which is center-right), and to this day is filled with center and right-wing talking points. You think the Left would have Raytheon War Privateers talking up Israel in itss slow-rolling genocide without criticism?

That being said, I would significantly advise OP read a book, or talk to a leftist. Preferably in real life. The concept of "The Left doesn't criticize Iran or Muslim Brotherhood" is somewhat divorced from the broader reality and context. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are American allies and their actions are things that the US Government directly or indirectly supports.

Saudi Arabia is a US ally, so the left is critical of that close relationship and the supplying of arms such as fighter jets to such a brutal regime (currently engaged in a devastating war in Yemen using American weapons). In contrast, the US has huge tensions with Iran, so the call from the left is "do not escalate this to war." In both instances the intent is the same: to reduce the threat of war.

Try to say what you're saying directly and in descriptive language and it falls apart at face value.

"The left-wing has no criticism of anti-democratic Theocratic states." Center-left criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood has been around for a long, long time. It's easily google-able.

Or how about: "Why does the Left criticize an American vassal state with a puppet in charge?"

This is not going to be easy...

Plague Dogs is one of those films that that leaves an distinct impact on you after you watch it. Very few films leave you so emotionally drained after seeing it. And the book has also been praised by pretty much everyone who has read it, and it is also hard for reviewers to properly review it without having an emotional breakdown.

I two, struggled to write a review, not because of the emotional impact. It's because... I don't like the original novel...at all.

Yes, I said it. The film adaptation is better than the novel, and there are many reasons why the film succeeds and the novel falls by the wayside. And no, it's not because it was a sad novel. I have read much more darker and depressing novels than this (E.G. NO.6 by Atsuko Asano).

The reason I hate this novel is for reasons that are shocking and makes you wonder how propaganda like this still runs rampant even to this day...

The Story and Characters

The story is about two dogs that escape an animal research centre and try to survive out in the wild.

But the novel doesn't focus on the dogs, only less than a third of the book actually follows the dogs. No, the main part of this book is to describe backgrounds in the Lake District and to make humans look like the worst thing in existence.

I am not kidding when I say that none of the human characters are likeable. Not one are redeemable in any way. One of the Characters, Digby Driver, is one of the most Despicable characters I have EVER read about. If your curious, read his backstory on Wikipedia! The novel makes his actions 10x worse here than a webpage can describe it.

The dogs are given no memorable traits. They are just blank slates that the readers can project their dogs onto. Which gives the novel a sense of manipulation.

From the very first page when the dog drowns in the tank, the reader knows that this is not going to have a happy ending and that it clearly has a left-wing, PETA-Like agenda against ALL forms of animal testing.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in these facilities, but most of them are given suitable habitats, and other than the test that they will go through, they live relatively normal lives.

Before you PETA fanatic go at me and call me an animal hater, let me make one thing clear...

I have lived with a lot of animals since childhood and I am currently taking an animal care course, and a science GCSE. I have read a lot about the different experiments they have given to animals, and all the animals have one thing in common...

They are healthy test subjects.

If the scientists had cruelly treated the animals and they were already sick, how would they know that the test (in this novel's case, medicine and disease control) was successful or they need to go back to the drawing board and try again.

Would I rather see other means of testing medication, of course I do. But until that day comes, we need to preform this necessary evil for the good of all. Clearly Richard Adams didn't do his research!

The entire novel only gives you one side of the argument without actually giving any viable reasons to agree with them. The author is so immature about the subject of animal testing, that he gave the animal research centre the acronym, A.R.S.E (a British slang for you buttocks!).

The fact that a reader complained about the ending of this novel speaks VOLUMES about this novel and how happy he was to give the work a "happy ending", people say that the first printing keeps the original ending. Luckily, my library has the first edition, and it is simply not true.

I did a bit more research and it was at the manuscript phase that the novel was changed to give the dogs a happy ending and add a scene where a girl who is seriously ill talks about the good of medical research in a childish way with her father.

The worst thing by far (other than the clear manipulation through guilt) is the character, Tod. What have they done to you, Tod? He is the only reason I read as far as he did, but the final nail in the coffin was his death.

The film gave The Tod a heroic death when he is trying to lead the police dogs away from the two main leads. In the book, he is killed by the gunman who gets eaten by the dogs.

It is the most disgusting scene I have ever read, not only did Rowf go out of character and eat the man in explicit detail. The Tod is captured and killed by the dogs, the gunman looks at his body, and throws at his hunting dogs to tear apart...

I am the only person disgusted by this novel? I mean, I know where Richard Adams is coming from, and I'm sure he had only the best intentions in mind, but why did he let the dogs die?

Well, if (and when) the dogs survived, they would of stopped being a construct and started becoming actual characters. They would of had to go through survivors guilt and Snitter recovering from his brain operation. It would of made it harder to project their own animals onto the two dogs. It would become Snitter and Rowf's story, not the reader's beloved animals. So the two dogs drown and all their troubles in life die with them.

The fact he wrote a "happy" ending angers me. He doesn't focus on the dog's recovery or what happened after they were rescued by the boatmen. The ending focuses on a father and little girl reading DR.Dolittle.

Richard Adams didn't care about the dogs, all he cared about was the message, and it isn't a good one.

The Illustrations

The illustrations are the only redeemable thing in this novel, the detail on them is beautiful. But later prints are removing the illustrations in later prints is confusing.

Even though they are only backgrounds and don't really fit into the story all that well, it is respite from the slog that is this novel. But now they are gone unless you hunt down an old copy, and they are getting harder to find for a reasonable price.

Final Thoughts

I am amazed that the film became a masterpiece despite the odds, and I still enjoy the film even after reading this novel.

The novel is a stark reminder how even today, people can easily manipulate you. And with a controversial topic like animal testing, we need someone with more of a neutral opinion about this topic, and not a left-wing activist preaching the word of PETA and god outside of these facilitie, harassing the workers who look after these animals...

The Story 0.5/5 The Characters 0/5 The Illustrations (No Longer Available)