A general observation first: an intelligent villain can do more damage than a stupid one. Stupid villains kill old women for their pension money. Clever ones murder millions.
Just look at the greatest evildoers of the 20th century, which is to say in history: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot et al – not an idiot in the bunch. It’s only because they combined wickedness with intelligence that they were collectively able to murder hundreds of millions.
The evil of our aspiring prime minister is beyond doubt for anyone who knows anything at all about Comrade Jeremy. I shan’t bore you with a long list of evidence for this assertion – you could probably compile one yourself.
On the off-chance that you can’t, just Google CORBYN in combination with words like TROTSKY, MARXISM, VENEZUELA, MADURO, IRA, ANTISEMITISM, HAMAZ, HEZBOLLAH, HARD LEFT, TERRORISM – take your pick.
Once you’ve taken it, think of the damage this creature could cause given half the chance. But then heave a sigh of relief and thank your stars that his evil doesn’t come packaged with intelligence. Give us a stupid enemy over a clever one any day.
If you wish to contest this assessment of Comrade Jeremy’s mental faculties, I can recommend cranking up your trusted Google again to search for a compendium of inanities Corbyn has uttered in the course of his undistinguished career.
Actually, you don’t need a compendium. Just his current tweet should make a sufficient case for the prosecution. Here it is:
“There are 150 billionaires in the UK while 14 million people live in poverty. In a fair society there would be no billionaires and no one would live in poverty.”
The first sentence implies a causative relationship. Comrade Jeremy clearly believes that it’s the 150 billionaires who consign 14 million people to poverty. Now I realise I may be overusing the word, but this is, well, stupid.
Corbyn subscribes to the zero sum view of economics, which even anyone studying the subject in secondary school knows for the nonsense it is.
Zero-summers see the economy as a pie whose size is constant. Hence anyone having a big slice means someone else having a small one. Except that this assumption is demonstrably false.
Western economies constantly grow, the odd slump notwithstanding. All major share indexes are now 10 to 15 times as high as they were when I first cursed the West with my presence in 1973, meaning that some serious dough has been added to the pie to make it rise.
Then of course there’s the issue of how those 150 despicable vultures got their billions and what they do with them. Let’s just look at one of them, Sir James Dyson, of the vacuum cleaners fame.
Sir James made his billions by giving millions of households a better version of the essential appliance. He currently employs about 7,000 people in the UK, all of them on decent incomes and benefits. I don’t know how much they contribute to the Exchequer but, in round numbers, it must be a hell of a lot.
Hence, rather than increasing the number of the poor, Sir James actually reduces it. The same can be said about all the 150, even those who use their money only to make more money, which to Comrade Jeremy brands them as blood-suckers or, which is the same thing, Jews.
Yet even such reprobates increase not only their own wealth but also that of the whole nation. They are the ones who provide essential investment for the Dysons of this world, vicariously creating prosperity and keeping millions of people employed – including many in the financial industry that provides a quarter of our GDP.
Jeremy’s bogeymen also surround themselves with a vast cocoon of service industry: restaurants, hotels, shops, dry cleaners, hairdressers, designers, tailors, florists, shoemakers, builders, drivers, decorators, pilots, accountants, lawyers, travel agents – millions of people who otherwise could be among the putative 14 million poor.
Corbyn’s second sentence is equally moronic. The implication is that some people being richer than others testifies to society’s unfairness.
Now, fairness means everybody getting his just deserts. Hence Corbyn is in effect saying that Dyson doesn’t deserve to be rich and the poor don’t deserve to be poor.
That this is untrue ought to be clear to anyone with an IQ above that of a courgette. Most of those 150 pernicious billionaires didn’t inherit their wealth, but earned and multiplied it by their talent, application and commitment.
Since such qualities aren’t immediately associated with most of the poor, by and large both groups get what they deserve. Hence a society that takes on the impossible task of eliminating both the rich and the poor may be all sorts of things, good or bad depending on one’s priorities. One thing it can’t be is fair.
What it absolutely has to be is tyrannical, using fiat to put a lid on ambition, talent and enterprise, while drawing its support from a growing parasitic mob. That’s Corbyn’s ideal of fairness, and it has been gloriously achieved in Maduro’s Venezuela that Comrade Jeremy openly admires.
Since Corbyn is manifestly stupid, only stupid people support him. That doesn’t necessarily mean they have no intelligence – only that they don’t use it to vote.
I know some perfectly competent individuals who support left-wing parties for all sorts of spurious reasons that reason knows not of, to use Pascal’s phrase. Coming to the fore instead are things like ideology, resentments, envy – or simply inertia and mental torpor.
The rest of us hope that Corbyn will be too stupid to mobilise the national reserves of stupidity to drive him into Downing Street. And that the Labour Party is stupid enough to let this creature lead it into the general election.
” Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot et al – not an idiot in the bunch. ”
Men also sadists. Not only killed others but did so in a manner they found pleasure-able..
Come back Neil Kinnock! All is forgiven!
It’s your last sentence that worries me.
If Labour have half a clue, they’ll let all the dirt stick to the magic grandpa, and then dump him just before the election. Some people – perhaps enough people – might then say “Ah thank goodness, it IS safe to vote Labour, after all.”
We must hope that in fact they don’t have a half a clue.