Elsewhere (89)
Brendan O’Neill on the madness of King George:
Consider George Monbiot. These days he rails against austerity, especially of the Tory variety, saying it has “extended the crisis” and “hurt” ordinary people by propelling Britain into a double-dip recession. But wait – I thought he loved the idea of recession? In 2007 he wrote an article called Bring on the Recession, in which he argued that, as “unpleasant as it will be,” and yes, “some people [will] lose their jobs and homes,” a recession might at least help prevent “ecological disaster” by reining in pesky, polluting economic growth. Back then, in his book Heat, which was lapped up by leftists and praised to the hilt by that Queen of the Left, Naomi Klein, Monbiot proudly said radical environmentalism was a “campaign not for abundance but for austerity.” Got that? For austerity. He said that where the dumb, consumption-hooked masses have a tendency to “riot because they want more, not less,” it was incumbent upon enlightened radicals to “riot for less” and even to “riot for austerity.” Once again, for austerity.
The eccentricities of Mr Monbiot’s thought processes will be familiar to regular readers.
Chris Snowdon has more on the subject, including one columnist’s belief that lowered living standards would be a “freeing” experience and result in a “more amiable atmosphere,” with the threat of poverty forcing shopkeepers and taxi drivers to be more polite:
When the full impact of the recession hit home a few months later, these columnists had the good sense to shut up about unemployment cleansing the soul for fear of being lynched by their readers… In part, it can be attributed the demands of being a contrarian newspaper columnist with space to fill, but there is no doubt that there are many people in well-paid jobs who believe that poverty is noble and empowering… It would be nice to think that some of these miserablists have learnt a lesson from the era of alleged austerity, but I suspect that it will only take a few quarters of economic growth for the attacks on GDP to return.
And of course we mustn’t forget the glorious visions of the New Economics Foundation, whose deep thinkers want to make us “better citizens” by taking away our stuff.
Christopher Tooky on the socialist filmmaker Ken Loach:
Most of the domestic policies Ken favours were last presented to the British public in Michael Foot’s 1983 general election manifesto, accurately described by former Labour minister Gerald Kaufman as “the longest suicide note in history.” Thirty years after that electoral catastrophe, the one reason to welcome this film is that it reveals more clearly than anything else the backward-looking, scarily obsessive, extreme political agenda of those who subsidise films in Britain — and, indeed, those who ‘criticise’ them, for I guarantee that this will receive the most respectful reviews of any release this week.
At the University of Oregon, a collision of posturing idiots takes place and a law professor loses his cool:
It’s an unfortunate reminder that sometimes those who are supposed to be the stewards of student rights are exactly the people that these rights need protection from.
And via Kate, a pictorial guide to the joys of public transport. This one, I think, captures the mood.
As usual, feel free to add your own links and snippets in the comments.
This one, I think, captures the mood.
No one make any sudden moves.
a pictorial guide to the joys of public transport.
Classy:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/3/13/18/enhanced-buzz-22776-1363212006-5.jpg
Classier:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/3/13/18/enhanced-buzz-31599-1363212028-3.jpg
Classiest:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/3/13/18/enhanced-buzz-22205-1363212011-3.jpg
No one make any sudden moves.
I try to avoid public transport, but I haven’t yet had to deal with rats or public masturbators, or people pressing their buttocks quite so close to my face. I did, though, have an odd journey on the Tube a couple of years ago, with an unwell-looking gentleman staring at me intently for the better part of fifteen minutes. I wasn’t sure whether it was a romantic overture or just that he was looking for someone else to murder. There was also a rather grim train journey I mentioned a while ago. And I did once get into a bizarre scuffle with a mad woman on a bus.
Yeah, but it’s the wrong sort of austerity.
We have an attempt at curbing the rise of government spending in order to promote economic growth.
The sort George & Co. have in mind is the precise opposite.
The sort George & Co. have in mind is the precise opposite.
George described his vision of austerity as “a campaign not for more freedom but for less… a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.”
Yes, the fun never stops when George is in town.
We live in a world that has tremendous wealth. And that wealth has to be managed by men who understand where it came from and how to create more of it. Who’s gonna do that? These leftist douche bags? Laura Penny, George Moonbat? Capitalists have a greater responsibility than these people can possibly fathom. They weep for poor and they curse the rich. They have that luxury. They have the luxury of not knowing what those of us who create wealth know:
that poverty, while tragic and completely unnecessary, is more a state of mind than a bank statement. And the existence of those wealthy people, while grotesque and incomprehensible to these leftists, preserves and creates capital…They don’t want the truth. Because deep down,
in places they don’t talk about in faculty lounges, they want them doing that job. They need them to do that job. Capitalists use words like equity, assets, liabilities…they use these words as the backbone to a life spent creating something. Leftists use ’em as a punchline.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain economics to a people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very tax dollars we wealth creators provide, then question the manner in which we provide it! We’d rather they just said thank you and went on their way. Otherwise, I suggest they pick up a shovel or lay some sod. Either way, it’s time to stop whining about what they think they’re entitled to.
It must be tough for George Monbiot. He wants us to think he’s a caring person but he really doesn’t like people at all.
He wants us to think he’s a caring person but he really doesn’t like people at all.
No, he doesn’t seem to like people much. I imagine we’re a huge disappointment to him. I suspect his chief aggravation is that many of us dare to disagree with him and often want to do things of which he disapproves. And the list of things he disapproves of is quite extensive. If only we’d do exactly as he says, and only as he says, then we’d all be happy. Just like him.
It looks like an entire Moonbat army has invaded the Telegraph’s readers’ comments to defend their Dear George. Their arguments may be pathetic (ad hominem abounds), but they do have a certain passion…
Spiny,
What’s interesting is how many of Mr Monbiot’s defenders seem to believe it’s the role of the state to dictate or “rein in” a person’s spending choices, on grounds that state-imposed economic hardship is “good” for some people, indeed “ethical” and morally improving, but not for others. And demanding the imposition of this arrangement is a “counterbalance to warped and bitter conservative views.” (They are altruistic and benign, you see; everyone else is a “hater.”) Others have been arguing about whether it’s defensible for a person to own more than one iPad. One Monbiotbot claims that a person’s earnings aren’t their own, and that how they spend their earnings – buying a nicer car, for instance – is very much the business of the state, which implies an awful lot that isn’t stated clearly. Presumably for fear of how it might sound. And so far as I can see, none of these egalitarian titans seems at all troubled by Mr Monbiot’s wild inconsistency.
But then, George is remarkably accommodating of his own hypocrisy.
one columnist’s belief that lowered living standards would be a “freeing” experience and result in a “more amiable atmosphere,” with the threat of poverty forcing shopkeepers and taxi drivers to be more polite
Because people who are stressed out about losing their jobs and bills they can’t pay are always so friendly.
#SocialistLogic
#SocialistLogic
One of my favourites is the Independent’s cultural oracle Tim Lott, who told his readers that a recession was to be welcomed on grounds that it would mean “less eating out” and “therefore less driving,” and that a rise in youth unemployment would result in a “creative upsurge.” Yes, we could live through another wave of Brit Art, and all it would take is a widespread fall in living standards and general immiseration.
If poverty is noble, can I choose crass? Or isn’t it about one’s personal choice?
Let me guess…the angry ‘Professor’ was a leading figure in the local Occupy movement.
…and he’s a LAW Professor! He ought to know that there’s no expectation of privacy in a public setting. He suddenly realises that he’s been caught on film being a complete asswipe, and so resorts to fallacious, petulant bluster in order to confiscate the evidence. Prat.
All I saw in the U Oregon video was petulant blustering asswipes, wall-to-wall.
petulant blustering asswipes, wall-to-wall.
Yes, it’s hard to know who to root for. A chest-puffing academic with anger management issues or the group of chest-puffing Students Against Imperialism, who took it upon themselves to block the road, thereby alerting people to how much they care about the “gendered and class implications” of the Mexico border. And of course Israel.
[ Added: ]
From what I can make out, it starts as a game of more-radical-than-thou, with Professor Olmstead sneerily goading the protestors to take a more belligerent stance. I think he may be attempting to demonstrate his point about the need for more ‘radical’ (i.e., obnoxious and physical) methods when the collective psychodrama kicks in and things go awry. Which, given the personalities involved, is no great surprise.
George’s drones are out in force, insisting that what they wanted was a different type of austerity, where individuals are pauperised to control their base urges (and incidentally to keep the horrible masses in order), not the nasty Tory one where public spending is cut by a massive 1%.
In short: State excess good, private ‘excess’ bad.
I “scare quote” private excess as their definition of excess is ordinary people owning a car, taking foreign holidays with their family, that sort of stuff.
I recall a short tube journey at rush hour I made a few months ago. From the moment I sat down an extremely drunk old Irishman abused me verbally, calling me “a fucking English fucker”, “a cunt”, “an army fucker”, over and over again for 15 minutes. After about five minutes I turned to him and said “OK mate, I think that’s enough” but to no avail.
It was all extremely embarassing. As I got off someone else got on and went to sit in my seat…
Monbiot is the darling of the left because his views are up and down, depending which way the wind blows and maybe his mood swings. Who knows? But there is no hypocrisy in this: as a true socialist he can hold simultaneous opposing views because it is all truly and deeply heartfelt, whereas the ‘other side’ have no heart and just consistently evil.
Make that “EX Law Professor”
“a campaign not for more freedom but for less… a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.”
So campaign to enslave humanity and impoverish them deliberately.
He sounds nice.
Sitting in an aisle seat in a jam-packed Colombian bus, and the tipo standing in the aisle next to me found himself pushed hard into my shoulder.
I won’t elaborate further, to spare the reader the cost of mental bleach.