Among all the media coverage of Margaret Thatcher's recent death, what has impressed me most are the scenes of communists, trade unionists, "occupyers", miners and assorted leftists "celebrating" collectively in the street (like in the video above) or privately at home with a bottle of sparkling wine or a cigar.
Where did you see analogous scenes? Among Muslims, of course, after 9/11 or some genocidal attack on Israel or other similar niceties.
You never see Christians celebrating the death of anyone, or real conservatives doing that. All these are decent people.
Display of happiness for someone's decease, just because that person has diverging opinions or is a political opponent, even in case of profound disagreement, is a sign of moral depravity and totalitarian way of thinking at the same time.
People on the Left have created the myth of their inhabiting the moral high ground, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Left-wing parties are, for instance, the ones most responsible for voter fraud, in the USA, in Britain and in many other countries.
In the UK, the Labour party government subjected its country to an experiment in demographic engineering by allowing mass, unrestricted immigration for political and electioneering purposes while lying to the people about its real motives.
Leftist parties in government display a highly unethical lack of concern for the enormous injustice of leaving a huge public debt, that they almost single-handedly created, to future generations who will be born indebted.
Historically, socio-communists have in modern times been the political forces that used most violence and killed the highest number of innocent people.
Even today, here are some statistics to ponder on. These are official statistics of the US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) for the year 2011:
“According to NCTC, of the 12,533 terrorism-related deaths worldwide, 8,886 were perpetrated by “Sunni extremists,” 1,926 by “secular/political/anarchist” groups, 1,519 by “unknown” factions, 170 by a category described as “other”, and 77 by “Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist” groups.”
Indeed, "the end justifies the means" could be the motto of the political Left.
And what is its end? Many people mistakenly think that socio-communists are moved by compassion for the poorest. That is hard to justify on the basis of empirical evidence, since, whether in socialist or in capitalist economies, Marxists and their allies, far from combating poverty, have always managed to create poverty.
They are not moved by compassion for the poorest (this is their spin), but envy for the richest.
Envy, being one of the basest human emotions, is also one of the commonest, which explains the great attraction that leftist ideologies have always exercised over the masses.
Christianity genuinely embraces compassion for the poorest, not socio-communism. The idea that there is something in common between them derives from the misconceived view of the charitable nature of socio-communism. Not coincidentally socio-communists have considered Christians as their enemies and massacred them in their millions.
One of the British people interviewed on the TV about their feelings about Thatcher's death was a miner's wife living in an English community affected by the former Prime Minister's decision to close down unproductive and economically unsustainable coal mines that were bleeding Britain's resources.
This woman, even while jubilating for the demise of the Baroness, was nonetheless full of bitterness and resentment. She kept repeating that Thatcher did not think of "us", and what about "us", and similar self-centred utterances.
This is one of the "me people", who would rather sacrifice a whole country's economy, as they also do with their never-ending entitlement requests that have created an ever-expanding, ruinous welfare state, than take responsibility for sorting out their lives.
One final consideration: why does hardly anybody call this display of lethal sentiments "hate", since wishing somebody dead and celebrating his/her death is the very essence of it, whereas simply disagreeing with the current orthodoxy, for example, which is the context to which "hate" is most frequently applied, is not? Because that term, like a table at a restaurant, is reserved for the politically incorrect only, and nobody else can usurp it.