Cactus Kate has revealed herself to be a Socialist. I suspected as much, when I wrote on banning boyfriends, but as with many things, a pattern only becomes apparent over time.
Cactus does not consider herself a Socialist at all. Which doesn't surprise me. Little old NZ is such a hotbed of socialist thought, so much so that it takes either a very self-aware person or a complete ideologue to consider themselves socialist.
To make identity even more difficult, socialism is one of those multi-layered things, where, while it appears to be soft and cuddly so as to attract the masses, it really is an iron fist lying hidden within a velvet glove. Cactus is certainly not of the soft and cuddly socialist type that most NZ socialists would fall under. No, she is the iron fist, the underlying socialist, the one who lurks within, advancing the core agenda year by year generation by generation.
While the Capitalist worships money, the Socialist worships work. Everyone (let's call them peasants), except for the ruling elite is required to work. The velvet glove socialists are out there making sure that workers get better conditions from their employers; that mothers can get daycare, that parents can get time off from work when their kids are sick; while as the iron fist socialists ensure that life is so unaffordable that most people wanting to raise a family need both parents to work to survive.
Lindsay Mitchell has said that the words people use do not a socialist make. She is correct. Words express ideas and ideas can reveal underlying socialism. Use of words does not create as socialist, so much as reveal one. A use of such a word as "breeders", a word only used when referring to parents in the negative indicates a person who has not much use for families. Maybe they have a grudging realisation that such people (if they could call them people) are necessary to some extent, but let's not make it too easy for them because then everyone would want to be "breeders" and we need everyone working! But even that one word is not enough to identify a socialist - what we need is a pattern of thought.
Contrast these two statements:
Marx believes that people ought to only have what they need. What people need is determined by people such as himself. No one "deserves" anything.
Cactus also believes that no one deserves anything - unless they are prepared to work for it. If you look at her posts on her married men conquests, it's always the "free-loading" wife (aka boa-constrictor) that is scorned, and the hard working married man that is admired.
Marxists tend to use class warfare as a means to gain power. There's "us" and "them". Typically the "us" are hard workers, while as the "them" have lots of money but don't appreciate it and feel they are hard done by. It used to the be that the "them" were the bourgeoisie, the "wealthy" middle-class and above. Marxists encouraged people to envy the bourgeoisie. Look at what these people have that you don't have, the Marxists would say!
Look at Cactus Kate's latest post on a bourgeoisie family in Auckland, continuing on the theme of attacking married couples. It is dripping with class envy. Commenters chime in with envy of married couples, where there is supposedly economy of scale making it more affordable for a married couple to get by than a single person. Cactus joins in with the suggestion that maybe married couples ought to be subsidising singles.
Most of the people commenting, including Cactus Kate, do not consider themselves socialists at all, yet their language and ideas reflect socialist thought. Class envy, worship of work, hatred of traditional families (breeders) are basic Marxist ideas.
The thing that confuses Cactus is that Labour is handing over money to the middle-class if they have children. Why would Labour do so if they hated the middle-class? There's a very simple answer to that question. Power at any cost, and once you pay for a group of people you have more control over them, effectively creating a slave class.
Unfortunately, Labour have squandered any good will they may have gotten from Working for Families because it traps people into a certain income band, making it not worthwhile for people to work harder and gain pay increases, and the clincher is the anti-smacking legislation. Labour supporting the anti-smacking legislation is killing their support in the middle and lower classes. There's only so much support that money can buy. And while we still have a voting system, the bought-off slave classes can still vote their masters out.
I've decided to write this post to point all of this out, because everyone in NZ is hurting because of socialist policies. The newspaper that Cactus criticises is highlighting the average NZ young family's difficulties in making ends meet - despite a supposed high salary. Not that I would consider what the two families attacked so far to be earning alot - I'd be very poor on that type of income. Luckily for me, we earn more than that (and still the interest rate rises are hurting and we've put off doing our renovations for yet another year).
So, my point is, that attacking the backbone of NZ society, is helping the socialist cause - not helping get the Government to back off in it's insane socialist policies. The sooner everyone realises what arguments they are using are socialist arguments, the sooner socialism can be turfed out. But if people who consider themselves anti-socialists are using socialist arguments, then the changes of destroying socialism in NZ are very slim indeed. Because socialism hurts everyone.
UPDATE: Rather than acknowledging or rebutting my points, Cactus Kate instead labels me a "nutter". Something that Communists in Soviet Russia were renowned for. If an opponent didn't agree with them, they were either a criminal or crazy.
Hi, to everyone from Asian Invasion! This is better than a wet tee-shirt competition, don't you think?
Cactus does not consider herself a Socialist at all. Which doesn't surprise me. Little old NZ is such a hotbed of socialist thought, so much so that it takes either a very self-aware person or a complete ideologue to consider themselves socialist.
To make identity even more difficult, socialism is one of those multi-layered things, where, while it appears to be soft and cuddly so as to attract the masses, it really is an iron fist lying hidden within a velvet glove. Cactus is certainly not of the soft and cuddly socialist type that most NZ socialists would fall under. No, she is the iron fist, the underlying socialist, the one who lurks within, advancing the core agenda year by year generation by generation.
While the Capitalist worships money, the Socialist worships work. Everyone (let's call them peasants), except for the ruling elite is required to work. The velvet glove socialists are out there making sure that workers get better conditions from their employers; that mothers can get daycare, that parents can get time off from work when their kids are sick; while as the iron fist socialists ensure that life is so unaffordable that most people wanting to raise a family need both parents to work to survive.
Lindsay Mitchell has said that the words people use do not a socialist make. She is correct. Words express ideas and ideas can reveal underlying socialism. Use of words does not create as socialist, so much as reveal one. A use of such a word as "breeders", a word only used when referring to parents in the negative indicates a person who has not much use for families. Maybe they have a grudging realisation that such people (if they could call them people) are necessary to some extent, but let's not make it too easy for them because then everyone would want to be "breeders" and we need everyone working! But even that one word is not enough to identify a socialist - what we need is a pattern of thought.
Contrast these two statements:
- What sort of lifestyle do you think you deserve? ~ Cactus Kate
- From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! ~ Karl Marx
Marx believes that people ought to only have what they need. What people need is determined by people such as himself. No one "deserves" anything.
Cactus also believes that no one deserves anything - unless they are prepared to work for it. If you look at her posts on her married men conquests, it's always the "free-loading" wife (aka boa-constrictor) that is scorned, and the hard working married man that is admired.
Marxists tend to use class warfare as a means to gain power. There's "us" and "them". Typically the "us" are hard workers, while as the "them" have lots of money but don't appreciate it and feel they are hard done by. It used to the be that the "them" were the bourgeoisie, the "wealthy" middle-class and above. Marxists encouraged people to envy the bourgeoisie. Look at what these people have that you don't have, the Marxists would say!
Look at Cactus Kate's latest post on a bourgeoisie family in Auckland, continuing on the theme of attacking married couples. It is dripping with class envy. Commenters chime in with envy of married couples, where there is supposedly economy of scale making it more affordable for a married couple to get by than a single person. Cactus joins in with the suggestion that maybe married couples ought to be subsidising singles.
Most of the people commenting, including Cactus Kate, do not consider themselves socialists at all, yet their language and ideas reflect socialist thought. Class envy, worship of work, hatred of traditional families (breeders) are basic Marxist ideas.
The thing that confuses Cactus is that Labour is handing over money to the middle-class if they have children. Why would Labour do so if they hated the middle-class? There's a very simple answer to that question. Power at any cost, and once you pay for a group of people you have more control over them, effectively creating a slave class.
Unfortunately, Labour have squandered any good will they may have gotten from Working for Families because it traps people into a certain income band, making it not worthwhile for people to work harder and gain pay increases, and the clincher is the anti-smacking legislation. Labour supporting the anti-smacking legislation is killing their support in the middle and lower classes. There's only so much support that money can buy. And while we still have a voting system, the bought-off slave classes can still vote their masters out.
I've decided to write this post to point all of this out, because everyone in NZ is hurting because of socialist policies. The newspaper that Cactus criticises is highlighting the average NZ young family's difficulties in making ends meet - despite a supposed high salary. Not that I would consider what the two families attacked so far to be earning alot - I'd be very poor on that type of income. Luckily for me, we earn more than that (and still the interest rate rises are hurting and we've put off doing our renovations for yet another year).
So, my point is, that attacking the backbone of NZ society, is helping the socialist cause - not helping get the Government to back off in it's insane socialist policies. The sooner everyone realises what arguments they are using are socialist arguments, the sooner socialism can be turfed out. But if people who consider themselves anti-socialists are using socialist arguments, then the changes of destroying socialism in NZ are very slim indeed. Because socialism hurts everyone.
UPDATE: Rather than acknowledging or rebutting my points, Cactus Kate instead labels me a "nutter". Something that Communists in Soviet Russia were renowned for. If an opponent didn't agree with them, they were either a criminal or crazy.
Hi, to everyone from Asian Invasion! This is better than a wet tee-shirt competition, don't you think?