More on Jacob-Rees Mogg

I spent a chunk of yesterday discussing Jacob Rees-Mogg on Twitter with a bunch of people who don’t like him. Their concerns appear to be as follows:

1. JRM doesn’t believe in abortion. This is in itself bad, because the UN has apparently declared access to abortion services a human right.

2. JRM has a history of voting against abortion rights. This is evidence that if he were to become PM, this would become the Tory party line and he would change legislation to ban abortion. Given his control over healthcare spending, he could even do this without changing any laws.

3. By voting against abortion rights, JRM was “imposing his personal views” on other people.

Where to begin?

Firstly, JRM opposing abortion is an abomination to the left. There was a time when dissenting views were tolerated, but now only absolute acceptance of today’s shibboleths is allowed (Helen Dale makes this point here, on a different subject). Secondly, that the UN has declared something a human right is meaningless. Much as though supranational outfits such as the WHO and UN enjoy trying to set domestic policies on a global basis, it is pointless unless the people who make up the various societies go along with it. But that’s a subject for another post.

The second point raises two issues. Is voting history as an MP a good indicator over which direction a PM will lead their party once in power? I suspect it is, provided they’ve toed the party line. If they’ve voted in dissent of the party line on highly specific subjects, like abortion, it probably isn’t. For JRM to become Conservative party leader he would need to be in-synch with the other MPs on most issues. His views on abortion are likely to be out-of-synch with most Tories (but not all), hence he would be voted leader because of his other qualities and views. In other words, he’d be a solid Conservative with some outlying views on abortion. Would he then be able to make banning abortion the party line? No, he wouldn’t.

Of course, this assumes that he’d want to. Lefties assume that a PM, once in power, will immediately set about making his own personal views the party line, because this is what lefties do whenever they get in power anywhere. Yes, there is an awful lot of projection going on in the criticism of Jacob-Rees Mogg. The right have traditionally been more interested in pragmatism than ideological purity and imposing ruthless discipline of the party line (which is why they’ve lost the culture wars). It is almost certain that JRM, should he become PM, would not risk tearing his party apart in order to foist his minority views on abortion onto them. The left don’t believe it of course, one chap even saying he would ban abortion and abandon secularism across the country “if he could”, based on his personal views and voting record. Again, that’s because this is what their side would do once in power. The idea that JRM might hold principles in his head to do with not imposing ones unpopular views on the citizens of a representative democracy once in charge is alien to them.

The third point was rather tedious to keep having to deal with. The UK is a representative democracy, whereby MPs are elected to represent their constituents in the drawing up of legislation and voting it into law. This is a messy compromise to avoid the leader of a nation standing accused of “imposing his personal views” on the citizenry. In order to beat JRM over the head, lefties have declared that his voting on various issues is in itself “an attempt to impose his personal views on others”, as if the entire legislative process with all the consultations and horse-trading that accompanies it never took place. I could understand if he was championing an anti-abortion bill, or insisting health bills contained anti-abortion clauses, but merely voting a certain way is imposing one’s personal views on others? Since when?

Since JRM popped up, that’s when. Naturally, lefties have no problem with the absolute mountain of legislation which is imposed on the long-suffering British population via activist MPs, lobbyists, health-fascists, and other special interest groups which do represent the personal views of a very few people. That much of this is railroaded onto the statute books without proper scrutiny or debate doesn’t bother them one bit, and this is all ignoring the giant, lumbering elephant in the room: the EU.

Of course, they don’t believe half this stuff they’re saying about Jacob Rees-Mogg. They’re just throwing words around hoping some of them will stick: “he wants to impose his personal views”, “he doesn’t respect women’s rights”, “he’s an extremist”, “he’s a deadbeat Dad“, “we can’t take a chance”. They’ve looked across the Atlantic and seen this is how their counterparts are behaving and copied their techniques. But they didn’t stop to notice that it doesn’t work and, if anything, is rather counterproductive.

The British left have spotted a young, very bright, ambitious Tory MP who appears to be gaining somewhat of a following and, despite his poshness, is somehow quite likeable. He also appears to have integrity and principles, and so naturally scares everyone else – including a very great many Tory MPs – absolutely shitless. Their response has been to seize on the rather insignificant (at least in the UK) topic of abortion in order to paint him as a dangerous extremist who will take the country back to the Middle Ages. I give it another week and he’ll be labelled a white supremacist Nazi. This is exactly what American liberals did to Trump, and all it did was get him elected. The more the left express their hysteria over JRM, the more people will take a look at him and either like what they see (for the most part) or be glad he’s upsetting the right people.

Lefties project, but alas they don’t learn.

Share

31 thoughts on “More on Jacob-Rees Mogg

  1. Very good post.

    I keep saying this about the Russia connection with Trump. It’s simply that these people are projecting their views and not learning. They think that it was fiddled because what they don’t want to address all the problems with their policies and their terrible candidate.

  2. RM is likeable because he is forthright and has principles unlike the rest of the opinion poll driven bellends in parliament.

  3. “Lefties project, but alas they don’t learn.”

    True, and nor can they imagine getting into a position of power and not using it to impose their own views over all those they rule.

  4. I would pay big money to see this chap debate Richard Dawkins on Creation, that would be the big one for me.

    I guess his conservative views would go down well with the Ulster Unionists although they may have some other differences to resolve.

    As for the UN, I think they are a far bigger problem than the problematic EU and never fear as they are working on ways to deal with societies that just don’t get it.

  5. @Bardon: Given that young earth Creationism (which I suspect you are refering to) is not Catholic doctrine and evolution is entirely compatible with Catholic doctrine I don’t know why. People seem to forget (or never learnt) that the Big Bang theory was put forward by a Catholic priest.

  6. ‘access to abortion services a human right’: easily dealt with. There is no such thing as a human right. Next!

    ‘if he were to become PM, this would become the Tory party line’: interesting. Would this Roman Catholic see himself as the Pope of conservatives? No he wouldn’t because they’d sack him if he even tried.

    ‘By voting against abortion rights, JRM was “imposing his personal views” on other people.’ Too stupid to waste time with.

  7. @Tom

    I wasn’t actually getting into the argument as far as presenting facts and taking a side nor bringing Catholicism into it. What I am saying is that Richard Dawkins is one of the best theorists at applying assumptions and abstract theories ever and RJM appears as if he could hold his own in a debate with him, which in itself is something to admire. I would seriously pay 10k to come and watch the two of them debate.

    And further to William’s post on logical fallacies used against him by the journalist I was highlighting how the skillful Dawkins does the same and uses many of his debating tricks in that interview. Watch it again he is very good at it, one of the best, see him discuss these five logical fallacies just to start with.

    Some yanks claim that earth is only x years old therefore creation is false.

    Only bible thumping dumb yanks don’t believe in evolution.

    Children that have been brought up to believe that the devil will get them, cant see that they are related to other creatures (which has not yet been proven that they are).

    The Book of Genesis deprives folk of the wonderful life of experiencing evolution.

    Ever since 1859 evolution has been proven. (not true)

    He is very good at it.

  8. @Bardon

    Yes, I agree it would be an exquisite debate but I suspect Dawkins would be perceived as the winner, mainly for the reasons you state above and also the fact that RWM is a politician and has already ummed and aaahed his way through a TV interview when asked those difficult questions. By the nature of his profession he doesn’t want to say no to people, we admire him when his does because it’s so unusual.

    Shameless plug; you may recognise the style of my place, click the link.

  9. @dearime

    Exactly! Even the Founding Fathers of the USA could only agree on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Our entire ancestral history until 3 generations ago was built on navigating a world where there were no rights, none whatsoever, for anyone other than Caesar.

  10. Yes Dawkins has been invincible to date, he wipes the floor with his opponents and I admire him for that reason but one day he will meet his match though.

    Coincidentally my first real awareness of the use of logical fallacies was based on an analysis of Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species. My wife and kids hated going places with me as every time the tour guide would say that some species evolved into what we are looking at now, they could feel my rage. I was unsuccessful in tendering for a major project in Darwin last year and my wife told me it was karma!

    Yes nice blog you have there, I have suggested an additional decision box on your Ozzie gay marriage flow chart.

  11. “Even the Founding Fathers of the USA could only agree on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Yeah, though of course it turned out that their interests were in fomenting war, driving slaves, and lynching Loyalists.

  12. I’ve never been impressed with Dawkins. Yeah, he’s a smart bloke but boy he doesn’t half come across as a dickhead sometimes. And what’s the point in an atheist debating somebody of faith? To prove them wrong, or deluded? The very definition of faith is believing in something which cannot be proved, and as for irrational beliefs: try explaining to me how supporting a football team season after season is rational when you break it down.

    The one thing stacked against Dawkins is that ever since the dawn of time mankind has, in one form another, worshipped something. Even societies which advanced thousands of miles from any other and in complete isolation engaged in worship of Gods of some sort. In other words, it’s as much a part of being human as falling in love and making friends. Trying to argue against it using logic and reason while ignoring the few billion people who quite obviously disagree or (more likely) don’t care is stupid.

  13. “Lefties project, but alas they don’t learn.”
    If they could learn, they wouldn’t be lefties (though they might be liberals, or reformers, or something).

  14. It’s impossible to tell how many individuals were atheist in the past: they had compelling reason to hold their tongues.

  15. It’s impossible to tell how many individuals were atheist in the past: they had compelling reason to hold their tongues.

    It doesn’t really matter: every society saw fit to worship something, or at least pretend to. They weren’t all atheists. Those who burned at the stake defending their religious beliefs probably weren’t faking it. And these religious institutions have proven to be phenomenally resilient, except the CofE: even that couldn’t withstand the lefty infiltration.

  16. I don’t know why people find it strange that some of America’s founding fathers owned and kept slaves. The reason seems obvious to me. First, freed slaves would have been captured and sold to neighboring plantations. Second, a freed slave had no job prospects, since they, like the poorer whites, had to compete with the unfree slaves. Finally, there was not much chance of marriage and starting a family. Jefferson educated James Hemings (his wife’s half brother) to be a chef and (grudgingly) freed him. That was the blue-print for the abolition of slavery mentioned in Notes on Virginia.

  17. “And these religious institutions have proven to be phenomenally resilient”.

    Possibly because there’s a evolutionary value to a common faith, as we are about to learn the hard way as the cultural Marxists destroy the values that we got from religion.

    You don’t have to believe in the Holy Trinity to benefit from the protection of the Ten Commandments. But if you destroy the illusion of the Holy Trinity for enough people, don’t be surprised if there’s a bit more murder, stealing and coveting going on.

  18. @William “cultural Marxists destroy the values”

    Yes the timing of Darwin’s book was absolutely perfect for Marx. During his time there was a growing body of the intelligentsia looking for something more than Genesis to explain creation. But more importantly it was the the political forces of the day that propelled it into the mainstream at a very fast rate such that it became the dominant accepted theory.

    “In 1862 Marx made a point of attending the public lectures on evolution given by Darwin’s supporter Thomas Huxley, and encouraged his political associates to join him. Wilhelm Liebknecht, a friend and comrade who often visited the Marx family in London, later recalled, “when Darwin drew the conclusions from his research work and brought them to the knowledge of the public, we spoke of nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries.”

  19. “Trying to argue against it using logic and reason while ignoring the few billion people who quite obviously disagree or (more likely) don’t care is stupid.”

    So why then does Dawkins this modern day Darwin Bulldog behave the way he does and show such intolerance towards his ideological opponents, why has his side needed a continuous pack of defensive bulldogs in the short time that they have been here, when we all know that the truth will always prevail?

    “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”

    My personal view is that at some level they do not believe in what they are saying but are that far committed to it that they cannot pull out.

    Marxists don’t give a hoot about creation, the reason that they hate God and all religions is that it has always provided mankind with a sense of what is right and wrong, it provides for civil societies and people caring for each other without the need for the ever growing state. Whereas a degenerate proletariat will depend on and never ever rise above the state. There is no better a way to destroy morals than to destroy the religions that instilled them and this starts with replacing the God that created them with Darwin.

    As I was saying on the other thread about RJM, a nations leader must be a Deist as a minimum. If we look at recent history as a comparison then it is plain to see that godlessness in society ie Communism/Marxism is an extremely bad thing for society. We never experienced anything like the level of murderous tyranny of the Soviets applied during the reign of Napoleon a Deist, this is the fundamental difference between the two schools of thought.

  20. “I don’t know why people find it strange that some of America’s founding fathers owned and kept slaves” It’s not strange that they did so but that they had the brass neck to lecture the world about liberty. All men are created equal indeed!

  21. Bloke on M4 –

    I keep saying this about the Russia connection with Trump. It’s simply that these people are projecting their views and not learning. They think that it was fiddled because what they don’t want to address all the problems with their policies and their terrible candidate.

    Also because (1) they wouldn’t be above cutting a deal with the Russians to help them over the line (see Ted Kennedy in 1984), and (2) they routinely fiddle the election themselves. Projection.

    That’s why American lefties are so opposed to voter ID laws. And that’s why they make the argument against them that they do, i.e. that blacks disproportionately don’t have ID and disproportionately vote Democrat so therefore voter ID is a Democrat voter suppression scheme: that’s precisely the logic that they would use to justify it if it benefited them! In fact, that’s basically the same logic they used to suppress black votes back when blacks voted Republican. Also it’s the logic behind mass third-world immigration.

    Their insincerity is so bone-deep that it’s actually become a kind of sincerity: they really believe what they’re saying. Or maybe they don’t, what the hell do I know.

  22. That’s the funny thing about democracy. By definition, every time there’s an election 51% of the voting populace “imposes” its views upon the 49%. That’s not the problem. The problem is when a very vocal and powerful minority do the same thing which is the true goal of the Progressive Left. Denounce the majority as an affront to minority rights when the majority veers in a direction the Left deems unacceptable, then trample the majority when–usually by means of misdirection and/or fraud–when the minority gains power. Then use the “Ratchet Effect” as noted in a prior post to claim the new status quo is somehow chiseled in granite never to be overturned.

  23. Tim, it isn’t faith that keeps us supporting our respective football teams season in season out. It is hope.

  24. 1st Law of SJWs – they always lie
    2nd Law of SJWs – they always double down
    3rd Law of SJWs – they always project.

    Every. Single. Time

  25. I notice yet another Rees Mogg article in the Guardian, he really has set them alight hasn’t he?

  26. Yes the way she was carrying on you would think that he was going to legislate for the relatively expensive medical cure for homosexuality to be made available through the National Health Service if he got in.

  27. Bardon
    “Yes the way she was carrying on you would think that he was going to legislate for the relatively expensive medical cure for homosexuality to be made available through the National Health Service if he got in.”

    If the NHS can make a man a woman, I can’t see any argument against them making a gay, straight….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *