Swivel-eyed loons

Written By: - Date published: 2:44 pm, May 20th, 2013 - 24 comments
Categories: activism, national, uk politics - Tags: , ,

In the UK the latest political scandal is the alleged description by a senior Tory of some of the Conservative Party’s activist supporters as “mad, swivel-eyed loons”. PM Cameron is thoroughly implicated in the mess, having apparently used similar language on a previous occasion.

Shades of the similar case in New Zealand where a top Brash advisor/speechwriter described core National party supporters as “almost barking mad” (see Nicky Hager’s The Hollow Men).

OK so I have to admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude here. But I don’t know which of the parties in this underlying civil war of right-wing politics comes out of it looking worse, the activists who support leaders that laugh at them behind their backs, or the leaders who exploit activists that they clearly have such low opinions of. Sad.

24 comments on “Swivel-eyed loons ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. aerobubble 1
    20 May 2013 at 3:53 pm

    Take evolution, why is it that the right so consistently fails to understand that those that survive are thus accredited as fit, and so there’s no way in saying what the fit look like until they have survived.

    Take dwarfism, or autism, both have serious advantages to social groups who do care and accept them, and this is why evolution has favored social groups that do, they survived. Similarly with homosexuality, decrease the number of offspring is a huge advantage when scarcity hits, less children to feed and so eating out the food source is less likely.

    So you see the right-wing eugenic policies are in many ways a unfit strategy of evolutionary losers.
    Where is Hitler now?

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      20 May 2013 at 5:04 pm

      What advantages are there to dwarfism?

      • NickS 1.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 7:06 pm

        [more science testing needed]

        Pygmies need less food, allows for exploitation and survival in marginal niches 😛

        Though true dwarfism usually carries with it significant fitness costs in relation to reproduction costs and joint issues.

        Otherwise current human breeding systems have basically stopped humanity from undergoing evolutionary radiation events, i.e. enough of us like reproducing with those not from our native cultural groups to ensure enough gene flow occurs, but is generally slow enough to allow for some adaptation and continuation of, to local environments. Like large lungs in Tibetan and Andes populations, or dark skin in high UV radiation areas, with no history of intensive, mainly starch-based agriculture that is. As that leads to low vitamin D intake and so skin tones lighten to gain more vitamin D via melanocyte alteration of cholesterol to vitamin D, catalysed by UV radiation. Hence the presence of dark skin tones in many high northern latitudes due to high vitamin D intake due to hunting and gathering providing much of the diet.

        As for selective advantages of homosexuality, you really need to be very careful and use hard data from human cultures and genetics, rather than build castles of untested hypothesis aka “just so stories” that evolutionary psychology is so fond of. And from a genetic angle, we still don’t know the genetics of sexuality (and gender identity), as it has a low chance of inheritance (homosexual parent(s) does not increase chance of homosexuality), making it rather difficult to say whether or not it can be worked on by selection.

        Best guess from the little I know, sexuality is probably the result of multiple gene interactions + developmental environment in terms of sex hormone exposure, with high degree of phenotypic plasticity. Which would explain both the degree of variation (not just three flavours people) and lack of strong inheritance effects. Need moar research though.

      • The Al1en 1.1.2
        20 May 2013 at 7:08 pm

        I used to go out with a girl who was 4′ 2″. I was nuts over her.
        Then I went out with a girl who was 6′ 7″, but I had to jack it in.

      • aerobubble 1.1.3
        22 May 2013 at 1:04 pm

        Ask someone with it, you’ll quickly find out. The basic premise though is that since evolution keeps stirring the genetic pot, and these archetypes keep showing up there must be a positive outcome from their existence. I personally think its more than just a more compassionate social group that by caring for differences leaves individuals more likely to lay down their lives for the group. Arguably the rise of neo-liberals and the fall in social volunteerism are linked, who wants to look like a fool helping a community that despises them. As to dwarfism, I’m no expert, but I guess that having a small body means the brain can be freed up, with the autistic they have lower social skills and so the parts of their mind used for all that emotional nonsense is freed up.
        Its my firm belief that if you train yourself to drive around with a big booming engine sound then obviously you will eventually speed down a driveway and run a baby over, the brain is limited, yet elastic, wired and wire-able.

    • kiwicommie 1.2
      20 May 2013 at 5:05 pm

      That is true in a way, though homosexuality doesn’t lead to a decline in births i.e. males can still donate sperm, and lesbians can still have children; gay adoption provides a larger pool of the population that can adopt children. As for National welfare policy in particular it does have an interesting appearance of being eugenics i.e. funding of birth control and self-sterilization for beneficiaries and the poor rather than bothering to fix the causes of poverty (high unemployment, poor wages, and lack of state and community support for children).

      • aerobubble 1.2.1
        22 May 2013 at 1:11 pm

        You are mistaken in believing that fertility, social freedom, religious weakness, etc is as easy in the present day. Reliance on family for immediate needs… etc.

  2. Olwyn 2
    20 May 2013 at 5:32 pm

    In response to the original post, I think you are touching on a meta-political issue. After all, Labour has seen Mike Williams dismissing critics of the present set-up as the far left, discontented remnants of the Alliance, while Shearer has often been called names by left wing activists. This seems to be the result of the tensions that arise between democratic representation and economic management in accordance with the wishes of powerful vested interests; a problem which does not look like abating any time soon.

  3. KJT 3
    20 May 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Well, they would have to be, wouldn’t they.

    That the right wing gets votes, is positive proof that half the population are below average intelligence.

    • kiwicommie 3.1
      20 May 2013 at 5:57 pm

      Not to mention easily brainwashed by neo-liberal leaning mass media. 😉

    • Colonial Viper 3.2
      20 May 2013 at 5:58 pm

      Well, half the population are below the median intelligence… 😈

      PS I know plenty of smart National supporters. I don’t think that it’s largely a question of intelligence.

      • kiwicommie 3.2.1
        20 May 2013 at 6:14 pm

        I supported neoliberalism once, even deified Ayn Rand. Once you fall into the trap of neo-liberal philosophy it is hard to break away, the best medicine was the recession in my opinion, but unfortunately some people would rather ignore reality and keep drinking down the same BS.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1
          21 May 2013 at 1:48 pm

          Late last century I was a committed free-marketeer. Then 9/11 happened and I actually started to look at what was happening in the world and what I discovered was that the neo-liberal paradigm was a load of BS, that the capitalists were taking over the world for their own benefit and that poverty was a direct result of capitalism.

          As I’ve learned more and thought about these things and the logic that underlies them I’ve gone to the left.

      • KJT 3.2.2
        20 May 2013 at 7:04 pm

        I don’t know many smart National supporters, but I do not know many National supporters, period.

        Seem rather rare in the world of small businesspeople, skilled workers and academics/Teachers that I move in.

        The ones I do know, are the type of people who either or both do not read non-fiction or have a rather limited world view.

      • David H 3.2.3
        21 May 2013 at 10:04 am

        But then again, you have the likes of Whale slime and he headline is spot on.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.4
        21 May 2013 at 1:50 pm

        All the National supporters I know are stupid.

  4. Peter Wilson 4
    20 May 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Why do left wing leaders have such a low level of confidence in their activists

    • kiwicommie 4.1
      20 May 2013 at 6:42 pm

      For a while it was lack of enthusiasm, though there are signs with NZ Power and other policy that their activists are getting ready for 2014.

    • Mary 4.2
      20 May 2013 at 10:23 pm

      Because most left-wing leaders are right-wingers.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.3
      21 May 2013 at 1:51 pm

      Typical disconnect. They don’t engage with them and so they don’t really know them.

      And what Mary said.

  5. joe90 5
    20 May 2013 at 9:00 pm

    To lighten things up a little, a short history of swivel-eyed loons.

Links to post