Our Betters Make Plans (2)
The World Economic Forum’s Ida Auken wants to correct your primitive lifestyle:
Embrace the upgrade, you filthy savages:
This is Ida Auken (WEF Young Global Leader) who wrote:
“Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.”
Here she is wanging on about using your neighbour’s car. pic.twitter.com/tbKT5MJzTR
— James Melville 🚜 (@JamesMelville) July 20, 2024
Because having neighbours and strangers, people you don’t know, taking your car, apparently at random, would be terribly progressive and super-convenient, and “fun,” and “not annoying.”
More on Ms Auken’s vision of tomorrow can be found here:
All these things, these beastly capitalist products, would be “free.”
And not yours.
Update, via the comments:
If the above sounds like an evasive, rather coy way of saying, “Everything will belong to the state,” or, “Surrender all territory,” then hold that thought.
Update 2:
In the comments, Brother John quips, rather pithily,
Indeed. We might also pause to consider the endless glamour of so-called “social” housing projects, where decidedly anti-social behaviour is not exactly uncommon, or public transport, or any number of other areas in which responsibility is dispersed and nebulous. Take away the territorial aspect, the ownership – the concept that Ms Auken finds so bothersome and passé – and things are generally much more likely to tend towards degradation.
Sometimes quite rapidly and to an eye-widening extent.
The human urge to have some territory over which other people – and the state – do not have total dominion is not a trivial thing.
Or, as Mr Muldoon puts it,
But hey, progress.
The wonderfully advanced people telling us we shouldn’t own anything, just trust it will be available to us when we want it, never seem to stand up against people losing access to common services like banking on the whim of a DEI functionary.
Yet if such a system is to not be a method of oppression you can’t discriminate… oh yes, it is just a method of oppression.
That’s next on their list.
It does seem to be a roundabout way of saying everything will belong to the state.
Or, surrender all territory.
You have people unwilling to walk some 20 or 30 feet to return a shopping cart to a corral at grocery stores. Take that or the litter of abandoned smart scooters you can find scattered on the sidewalks of metropolitan areas and imagine where all the “borrowed” cars would wind up.
Mankind has been on this Earth how long? And Progressives flatter themselves to think they discovered the means to Utopia, ignoring the predictability of human nature.
And yet these preening creatures wonder how it can be that their fantasies aren’t met with universal applause, or cheerful and immediate deference.
Embedded into the back of other cars. Who cares about shunting free stuff?
We might also pause to consider the endless glamour of so-called “social” housing projects, where decidedly anti-social behaviour is not exactly uncommon, or public transport, or any number of other things. Take away the territorial aspect, the ownership, and things are much more likely to tend towards degradation. Sometimes quite rapidly and to an eye-widening extent.
The human urge to have some territory over which other people – and the state – do not have total dominion is not a trivial thing.
That can fuck off.
Well, er, yes. Quite.
Tell me you have never worked a day in your life without telling me you have never worked a day in your life.
“Sorry about your wife going into labor, I needed some cigarettes, by the way, you need some new tires”.
Anybody ever wash a rented car?
No?
This woman is an idiot.
I’m so far up to here with these international lunatics that I’d urge the next president to send an expeditionary force to simply destroy them. Pop in at one of their conventions unannounced, kill or capture whomever you can, and leave not one stone on top of another.
There are already several carpooling networks in the country, and across Europe, serving those so inclined – they’ve been around for years – but they remain, shall we say, a niche concern. It would seem that the overwhelming majority of motorists would prefer not to have some random stranger poking about in something to which they may well feel attached, and may need at short notice, and which is generally a person’s second-most-expensive possession, after their home.
There are already several carpooling networks in the country…
I have no problem with the carpooling idea as long as it is up front who is responsible for what, for instance, everyone in the pool chips in for new tires, who gets use priority based on what, and so on, but the notion that you can just walk up to a random car and use a phone app to drive off without so much as a by-your-leave, is utter lunacy.
Of course with Full Luxury Communism™ the robots will do all the maintenance, I guess.
One of the many neglected aspects is the loss of perceptual boundaries. If some rando is hanging around my car, it’s pretty easy to deduce shenanigans are occurring. If randos are constantly getting in and out of ‘my’ car, that’s a lot of cover for crims having a go, via the app or not.
A lot of the trans/women’s spaces stuff revolves around that, I think. The reassurance of being able to determine easily, whether someone’s supposed to be there or not.
[ Post updated. ]
These are rootless cranks who spend most of their time in airport VIP lounges and have domestic staff to clean up and reconfigure their living/income generation rooms between uses.
And the uncanny way that environmentalists target that very instinct instead of trying to work with it (here’s a theory: sustainable environment comes from ground-up stewardship which comes from ownership and having a stake in the future).
And putting everything into a common pool isn’t going to make the instinct for ownership/territory go away, it’s just going to incentivize gaming the system, naked exercises of power, and (for non-whites) unashamed ethnic group preferences.
Almost every sentence Ms Auken mouths is absurd, or dubious, or simply untrue.
When The Other half and I were out for a drive in the Peak District and spotted an elderly couple who’d underestimated the difficulty of their hike and desperately needed a lift, we were happy to oblige. Water and sweets were provided, and amiable chatting ensued. It was indeed pleasing to be able to help them out. Plus, the elderly couple didn’t look particularly dangerous or likely to steal any of the crap stashed on the back seat.
But having strangers drive away your car, seemingly unannounced, and regardless of your own plans and preferences, isn’t quite like that – and doesn’t sound fun. At all.
She, on the other hand, as a Very Important Person–a member of the Nomenklatura–will have a car permanently assigned to her to facilitate her selfless activities on behalf of us, the lumpen proletariat.
This, this, this.
I have observed the reality of “shared property” on numerous occasions: College dorms and small houses, rooming houses, slan shacks, etc. Neglect of the common areas was rife. In some, as a matter of fact, the stench of uncleaned cat boxes was pervasive and even the presence of cat or dog feces on out-of-the-way stairs was far from unknown. And in all these places, the residents endeavored to have their own personal stereos and TV’s and whatever other things they could afford.
As a child, disputes with siblings over what to watch on the one TV (and what music to play on the one stereo) were not rare and negotiating these conflicts was difficult and sometimes impossible.
If, some day, you happen to be arguing with this bitch after which she drives away and promptly rolls her car into a ditch, please refrain from rendering assistance.
I have encountered amazingly inventive “reasons” why they don’t return those shopping carts: Everything from “The store should employ people to constantly retrieve carts before they can block parking spaces” to “Leaving carts all over the parking lot is beneficial to handicapped people who can use those carts to assist them in walking across the lot.”
Well, absolutely. ‘Tis the way of things.
For some reason, this came to mind:
And as Tim Newman once said,
Some don’t, of course.
The selfish cunt discussed here has a novelty reason as to why she needn’t bother returning her shopping cart – it would put her children’s lives in danger!
I have a question for anyone avidly watching the Disney Star Wars series “The Acolyte“. Obviously I’m not going to watch it myself ‘cos it’s dogshit and I have some self-respect. So can any of pathetic losers tell me if the word “Sith” has been uttered so far?
You see I have an Acolyte Theory – that the Lesbian Headlamp self-insert character(s) OSHA and FEMA will turn out to be the original Sith Lords. (Lordesses?)
And, of course, that they’ll be good and righteous and rightly opposing the evil Jedi who killed their parents. Because the Farce is Female, don’t you know.
As Mr Christiansen’s companion, QuiteFrankly, points out, there is an obvious solution. One that provides small children with a simple but positive example of adult responsibility. Something you’d think a parent – a parent who’s employed as a psychologist – might pause to consider.
They should put that on the posters.
For anyone wanting to share their car with strangers, remember Uber has to post their fees for cleaning up vomit.
These are rootless cranks who spend most of their time in airport VIP lounges and have domestic staff to clean up and reconfigure their living/income generation rooms between uses.
Comrade Kaprugina has some thoughts on the matter.
Not sure I want advice about automobile ownership and usage from someone likely accustomed to chauffeured transport at taxpayer expense. Though that might explain her notions about ‘borrowing’ vehicles.
Actually, yes. Vacuumed the interior too. It was rented through Turo.
Ye gods has this bint never heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? I didn’t make it a quarter of the way through her bilgewater article before my head started to pound (probably because it was hitting my desk, repeatedly). The beginning read like that eX-Twitter thread being passed around, as to what your ideal job would be at the Commune.
All these Utopias just assume that the basics will be provided, somehow [hands wave vaguely]. This article mentioned AI choosing her (borrowed?) outfit for the day, and I guess Full Luxury Communism assumes robots will do all the dirty work, but who builds and maintains the robots and AI? Who mines and smelts all the ores and minerals needed for a huge fleet of complex robots? That’s an awful lot of work to build and maintain machinery of the scale one of these Utopias would require. I guess that’s what the unpersoned subhumans will be doing – acting as slaves to the Elite, but it’s ok, this New slavery, because the slaves aren’t really people, right?
Thomas Sowell talks about the tragic vision of human nature, that we need to accept that people are flawed, selfish, even criminal, and that creating the perfect human is not possible, certainly not by a government (and only rarely by religion). Just talking about ideal worlds does not make them possible.
If you don’t own anything, I can see why it might be attractive to just take other peoples’ stuff and not have anything of your own that can be taken. But that isn’t progressive, it’s sociopathic.
Her words are a means to an end, not a way of expressing what she thinks is true. The end is total control of the population — promising utopia is a way of getting people to relinquish their power and turn it over to people like her.
She doesn’t actually think that the arrangement will work the way she says it will. She just knows that it will get her the power she wants.
I guess that’s what the unpersoned subhumans will be doing – acting as slaves to the Elite, but it’s ok, this New slavery, because the slaves aren’t really people, right?
Explanation for the West’s current immigration policies right there.
The pilgrims initially were pure communist: no ownership of land. They starved because some people don’t want to work. When they ended that experiment and divied up the land for farming, they prospered. huh. who would have guessed.
A free enterprise system harnesses individual ambition for the benefit of all. People like Steve Jobs create billion dollar businesses with that ambition. Other people create a thriving coffee shop or plumbing business.
I’m obliged to get feedback from this crowd on an important issue; https://x.com/NoContextBrits/status/1801192551682019610
I assume she comes from a wealthy family and has always had everything she wants without effort. So many of these malevolent lunatics do.
She just knows that it will get her the power she wants.
Yep, because she knows it will appeal to the lot of leftists who want to remain perpetual children with their whims catered and devoid of any responsibility.
Meanwhile – The Acolyte – The Critical Drinker has thoughts…
Episode 1
Episode 2
Strange that pease pudding is worst rated, as it’s quite tasty.
[ Ugly rumblings. ]
She, on the other hand, already owns everything, I betcha. Which makes her views even more sociopathic.
I’m obliged to get feedback from this crowd on an important issue
There’s some good eats on that list and I’ve eaten everything on it. The only things I would not eat again are the sugary desserts.
Ooh, dreams of lardy cake…
“You go, girl fire.” Heh.
Hehe, cucumber sandwiches. I remember my grandmother making those, I could never figure out the appeal.
She was of English heritage (I’m an evil colonialist country mongrel; 1/4 Brit, 1/4 French, 1/4 Spanish, 1/4 German).
Added: Oh hey, what’s that last tasty-sounding item? I didn’t dare look it up.
[ Ugly rumblings. ]
A fine day would be an English breakfast (skip the black pudding), pease pudding for lunch, garden vegetable salad and rock cake for afternoon tea but with coffee, and roast beef and Yorkshire pudding for dinner (or the roast lamb). Yum.