Monday, May 13, 2013

conservative parties chasing the wrong voters

The most disheartening thing about modern politics is the sight of supposedly conservative political leaders desperately chasing votes they will never get. We’ve seen a fine example of this recently in Australia with Tony Abbott’s silly comments about diversity.

The reality is that global warming true believers, gay marriage proponents and multi-culti enthusiasts are not going to vote for a conservative party. A conservative party is not going to win the votes of bicycle-riding vegetarian lesbians, or inner-city layabouts subsisting on government arts grants, or fanatical environmentalist doom-mongers, or illegal immigrants, or bleeding hearts do-gooders. So why bother pandering to them? Trying to chase their votes is silly and futile.

And why bother pandering to the left-wing media when they’re never going to support a conservative political party?

Surely the sensible option is to chase the votes of people who actually might conceivably vote for you? It’s an option that increasingly doesn’t seem to occur to conservative political parties. Politicians are surrounded by so many spin-doctors that they’re constantly running scared of people who would never support them anyway.

what I love about warmist true believers

What I really love about debating anthropogenic climate change with the warmist true believers is that you know that at some stage they’re going to spit the dummy and storm off in a huff. It’s just a matter of time. Like all leftists they cannot deal with the idea that you might disagree with them. If you disagree with them it must mean that you’re stupid or wicked or probably both.

You cannot debate with leftists. Whenever a leftist tells you they are willing to engage in a sensible debate you can be certain that a few minutes later they’ll be throwing a tantrum and taking their toys and going home. It’s amusing but rather depressing at the same time. They’re so insecure about their beliefs that any disagreement frightens and enrages them.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

historical fiction and thoughtcrime

I had an interesting discussion recently with someone on LiveJournal (yes LiveJournal still exists) on the subject of historical fiction. She’s a writer and she was advised by a  publisher that if she tried her hand at historical fiction she should be sure to make all her characters modern characters. The advice was that any attempt to make the characters of their time was a definite no-go. The beliefs, attitudes and speech of the characters must be 21st century regardless of the historical setting.

This to me defeats the entire purpose of historical fiction. If there’s no attempt to make the characters think and behave as they actually would have thought and behaved at the time, then why bother?

The problem of course is that the way people used to think and behave is now unacceptable. It doesn’t conform to our official religion of political correctness. So political correctness must now be imposed on the past. It’s all very Orwellian.

And not only do we now get politically correct historical fiction, we also get fiction written in the past censored to remove the more politically incorrect bits. Yes, this is happening, although most people are not aware of it. I recently bought the Wordsworth Editions paperback release of some of the Bulldog Drummond thrillers written by H. C. McNeile (under the pseudonym Sapper) and in the introduction the editor proudly tells us that he’s censored it in the interests of cultural sensitivity.

Never underestimate the obsessive thoroughness with which the Thought Police approach their task. Even dead writers can be convicted of thoughtcrime.