David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Ephemera | Main | Just Don’t Get It On The Sofa »

August 28, 2016

Comments

R. Sherman

From their Facebook page:

...the gilded elite who have ruled us since Norman times remain in power and dominate land ownership just as they did when they first robbed it.

So it's the fault of the French, then? Everything would be fine if only Harold hadn't taken one in the eye at Hastings?

Hedgehog

So it's the fault of the French, then?

Can't argue with that.

Jen

self-described “class warrior” and “rebel ethnographer” Dr Lisa McKenzie, currently blunting minds at the London School of Economics.

Thank God standards haven't dropped.

BD Sixsmith

Wikipedia informs us that Dr McKenzie stood as a Class War candidate in the 2015 elections and received a depressingly large 0.1% of the vote.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

There is a class war waging and we are losing it...But 30 years later the same approaches do not work. Endless photos of overseas riots and balaclaved anarchists bring no movement here. The same old same old is getting us nowhere.

But yet they keep doing it, if only there was a lesson to be gleaned from failure.

Meanwhile, tackling another vital problem of the day the pretentiously, yet hilariously, named Class Womens Death Brigade (whether they or someone else is supposed to die is unclear) takes on the Jack The Ripper Museum. Fear them as their inflatable hammers and stickers destroy you rich bassards !

Meanwhile, please stop at the Class Wars™ Online Shop, and join us for the 20 Annual Punk Picnic which is free except or the "...pre-picnic fundraiser, t-shirts, compilation CD/download and all that flapdoodle, in order to help cover band expenses."

Thank God standards haven't dropped.

A good thing too, not just anyone can teach about graffiti "muriels", and nothing says serious academic like neon magenta hair.

David

Thank God standards haven’t dropped

I’m still processing the fact that Dr Mckenzie’s video - in which she inadvertently and at length undermines her own point - is being used by the University of Nottingham to advertise its sociology department and “centre for advanced studies.”

Where, presumably, such standards are commonplace.

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

...she inadvertently and at length undermines her own point...

Speaking of which her...

...recent research funded by a Leverhulme Early Careers Award...

Leverhulme Early Careers Award, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, founded by noted rich dead white guy, Lord William Hesketh Lever. Obvious joke will be eschewed, but damn those rich people.

Roy

Dr Mckenzie’s video - in which she inadvertently and at length undermines her own point - is being used by the University of Nottingham to advertise its sociology department and “centre for advanced studies.”

If I didn't know it was real I'd have assumed it was a spoof.

David

If I didn’t know it was real I’d have assumed it was a spoof.

Well, it is veering towards Brass Eye territory. And the police helicopter rumbling overhead is the cherry on the cake.

pst314

"It’s our job for the rich to fear us."

It sounds as if these people don't fear us as much as they should.

R. Sherman

"It’s our job for the rich to fear us."

I wonder if they'd be willing to take that righteous rap to, oh say, the Central African Republic which has a per capita GDP of less than one dollar U.S. per day? To paraphrase humorist Fran Lebowitz, it's easy to denounce "the Man," when your mouth is full of "the Man's" pot roast.

jabrwok

It’s our job for the rich to fear us.

People will often destroy that which they fear, and the rich have plenty of resources at their disposal to do just that.

These idiots are Britain's answer to the Palestinians. Relying on the humanity and self-restraint of their enemies while incessantly attacking said foes. Eventually Sampson isn't going to sit back and take it anymore.

harumf

Well, I'm down with blaming it all on the French. Can we cast some Blame Belgium's way too?

Paul Carlton

I love the way they have so many links to Guardian stories on their Twitter account, all nicely credited.

They really are so, so wadical.

pst314

"People will often destroy that which they fear, and the rich have plenty of resources at their disposal to do just that."

I believe the rich have less to fear from the radical left than do those less well off.

David

I believe the rich have less to fear from the radical left than do those less well off.

Absolutely. When not smashing estate agent windows or shitting in people’s gardens, they tend to harass local residents and vandalise small businesses – acts of spite and thuggery that Dr Mckenzie then construes as equivalent to the overthrow of apartheid.

Malice and vanity, every time.

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

Malice and vanity, every time.

From your second link and the excusing of the Taliban by Gopal, A modernity that has “little to offer Afghans other than bikini waxes and Oprah-imitators.” I am guessing that Gopal didn't ask Ahmad Shah Massoud or any of these ladies who went to school with him in the 1970s.

Dom

Very much off topic, but I had to share this. I find it ... well ... disturbing, let's say.

https://youtu.be/CkjAoq7XRv8

WTP

I don't think I've ever been able to find the original quote, but Jack Kerouac once attributed to Dostievsky "Give man his utopia and he'll destroy it with a grin."

David

They rail against “gentrification,” vandalise small businesses and shit in people’s gardens. So imagine these creatures moving in next door.

I mean, what’s the opposite of gentrification?

Farnsworth M Muldoon

I mean, what’s the opposite of gentrification?

Scumification, douchifying, slumification, wankerizing, might be some of the more polite ones.

David

slumification

I suppose there’s “urban blight.” But I prefer the more colourful alternatives – scrotification, for instance.

(For readers overseas and those accustomed to urbane and rarefied company, it’s a long ‘o’, as in scrote, as in scrotum. Generally used by working-class people to denote someone who’s untrustworthy, possibly a thief, workshy, etc. Someone you wouldn’t want as a neighbour, however modest your means. See also, toe-rag.)

Farnsworth M Muldoon

As I believe that is the delightful Miss Dr. McKenzie on the far left of the banner (right in the photo - also see here), and because the the innarweb is chock full of interesting information, it appears as a member of the Academic Staff of the London School of Economics Miss Dr. McKenzie is hauling down north of £50,000 ($65,000), not counting whatever her grant is.

As the median income in the UK is around £27,000 ($35,000), does this mean she has to find herself a new home ?

R. Sherman

There you go again, Muldoon. Pointing out the philosophical flaws in a system of ethics/morality predicated upon the amount of "stuff" over which someone claims dominion. It's not about the existence of "dachas." It's about who has the dacha.

Or the corner office in the Politburo or all-expense-paid trip to Davos to bitch about Capitalism.

Your suite in the re-education camp is already prepared complete with the dreaded "comfy chair."

jabrwok

They rail against “gentrification,”

That guy in the middle reminds me of something...

Farnsworth M Muldoon

Your suite in the re-education camp is already prepared complete with the dreaded "comfy chair."

I denounce myself, and will report to Sector 9 for re-grooving immediately.

Trevor

Well, it is veering towards Brass Eye territory. And the police helicopter rumbling overhead is the cherry on the cake.

I was also reminded of People Like Us

dearieme

I believe the rich have less to fear from the radical left than do those less well off.

Not least because they can pop off abroad.

P.S. Where on earth do they get the loopy idea that all our current generation of owners of rolling acres are all Normans? I suppose they are the sort of people who are so talented that they believe both that and that all the nobility are descended from Charles the Second's mistresses, Tudor wide boys, and nineteenth century mill-owners.

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

I would have said "chavification" myself. But the Class War types probably hate the chavs and the working classes, too.

Hedgehog

Not least because they can pop off abroad.

I believe I have appealed to the authority of G.K.Chesterton before in these pages, but he is the gift that keeps on giving, so here we go again:

You’ve got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists, as you can see from the barons' wars.

Watcher in the dark

I don't understood why the lefty hordes never go after the wealthy who are, nominally, lefties like themselves. You know, champagne socialist and the like, living behind secure gates and enjoying all the perks of having far more money and power than is good for them.

Surely in the name of equality the hatred of unearned money, undeserved privilege and illgally-gained advantage should be spread round equally.

Watcher in the dark

God I hate tryping. "I don't understood" was meant to be "I don't understand." There you go.

David Gillies

Bearing in mind what happens when these people actually achieve power (Cambodia, North Korea, Angola etc.), the banner is not just amusing hyperbole. They really do want to kill people. So I think some preemption against that lot up there with, say, an L7A2 and a tasty belt of 7.62 would not really be an overreaction.

Hal

I don't understood why the lefty hordes never go after the wealthy who are, nominally, lefties like themselves. You know, champagne socialist and the like, living behind secure gates and enjoying all the perks of having far more money and power than is good for them.

An issue is not who has what money, the issue is quite genuine upper class vs lowest class . . .

In very, very simple terms, this book is about two very different and opposing concepts.

One concept states: "I have Tea. Tea is what patricians have, and I have tea. Because I have tea, you are to admire me and openly acknowledge that I must be considered important." Rather clearly and simply, this is the undoubted and documented worldview of the peon.

Completely in contrast, and forever the superior of the peon is the opposing concept: "Would you like a cup of tea? I don't care who you are, I don't care where you come from. If you don't want any tea, that is perfectly fine. At this moment, I can offer a cup of tea. Would you like a cup of tea?" This second and opposing concept is the worldview of the patrician.

Pulling from Nancy Mitford---'k, so back in '55, but I'll get back to that---;

But whether their families are 'old' or 'new' is of small account -- the lords have one thing in common: They share an aristocratic attitude to life. What is this attitude? The purpose of the aristocrat is to lead, therefore his functions are military or political . . . In politics, including the unglamorous and often boring local politics, they have worked hard for no reward and done their best according to their lights. . . . Those who went to the colonies were administrators, they rarely feathered their nests -- the great nabobs were essentially middle class. . . . . . . . In England, public business is its own reward, nobody would go into Parliament in order to become rich, neither do riches bring public appointments. Our ambassadors to to foreign states are experienced diplomatists, not socially ambitious millionairesses.

So, yes, that got written in '55, but then Stalin was '29 to '53, Mao was the '40s to the '70s, Pol Pot was the mid '70s, the Kims got started in the late '40s . . . and Angola has been just a mess since the '70s . . . . Oh, and . . .

. . . The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists, as you can see from the barons' wars.

Lesseee . . . First Barons' War, according to Wikipedia . . .

The war resulted from the king's refusal to accept and abide by the Magna Carta which he had sealed on 15 June 1215, and from the ambitions of the French prince, who dragged the war on after many of the rebels had made peace with John.

The Second Barons' War, according to Wikipedia . . .

The reign of Henry III is most remembered for the constitutional crisis in this period of civil strife, which was provoked ostensibly by Henry III's demands for extra finances, but which marked a more general dissatisfaction with Henry's methods of government on the part of the English barons, discontent which was exacerbated by widespread famine.

Sooo . . . . given . . . I would have said "chavification" myself. But the Class War types probably hate the chavs and the working classes, too.

No, not the chavs and the working classes, it's the chavs or the working classes . . .

Working class people hate chavs.

. . . therefore, actual functioning patricians, --- whether a working class master carpenter framing a house correctly the first and only time so as to do it once, or a upper class senior mandarin trying to sort out economies and schools and repairing roads, --- are the most interested in having various levels of government work correctly.

It's the peons, the working class chavs and the utterly middle class posers, who are the embodiment of the lowest class more than some variety of lower class . . . .

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

So I think some preemption against that lot up there with, say, an L7A2 and a tasty belt of 7.62 would not really be an overreaction.

Though I would agree in concept that this lot would benefit greatly from an up close and personal glimpse of the elephant, the very large difference between them and the real Ches, Maos, Pol Pots, and Kims is that they are poseurs who think neon hair and piercings are a "revolutionary act". Despite their pretentious names there is not a genuine "warrior" amongst them.

Go to the "Class War" website, they have had more "decisive battles" than the allies in WWII, yet they have accomplished nothing by their own admission. Their putative "leaders" like Miss Dr. McKenzie are hardly the second coming of Clausewitz.

These bozos are the proverbial latte sipping academics, not football hooligans, the only people they will agitate against or stand up to are those who they know won't fight back. In a real revolution the lot of them would be as scary and effective as a basket of puppies.

Hal

. . . In England, public business is its own reward, nobody would go into Parliament in order to become rich, . . .

Of course a Yet Particular Mention does also keep coming to mind . . .

Animals have rights too, you know. A battery chicken's life isn't worth living. Would you want to spend your life packed in with six hundred other desperate, squawking, smelly creatures, unable to breathe fresh air, unable to move, unable to stretch, unable to think?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Certainly not. That's why I never stood for Parliament.

David Gillies

Farnsworth: it is from among such people that the butchers of collectivism have always been drawn.

Liz

Dr. McKenzie is hauling down north of £50,000 ($65,000), not counting whatever her grant is.

'I don't consider myself wealthy, says £138,000-a-year Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn'

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14707575.__39_I_don__39_t_consider_myself_wealthy_quot___says___138_000_a_year_Jeremy_Corbyn/

David

Dr. McKenzie is hauling down north of £50,000 ($65,000), not counting whatever her grant is.
‘I don't consider myself wealthy, says £138,000-a-year Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’

I should imagine that Mr Corbyn and Dr Mckenzie have mastered much the same manoeuvres as Polly Toynbee, who, despite her resentful denunciations of “the rich” - whom she names “pigs” - doesn’t in fact seem to have a problem with wealth – her own, I mean. Even when it exceeds that of the people she denounces as shameless, grasping and obscene. Perhaps like her, they merely object to wealth being earned by people who dare to disagree with them, and who can’t be arsed to feign pieties they don’t actually live by.

R. Sherman

...it is from among such people that the butchers of collectivism have always been drawn.

Quite. Though they may not pull the triggers themselves, they're not above putting a few psychopaths into jodhpurs and Sam Brown belts and having them take care of the messy opposition.

R. Sherman

...and who can’t be arsed to feign pieties they don’t actually live by.

I recall a previous post of yours, albeit in a different context, to the effect that "the cost of piety should be borne by the pious."

When virtue ceases to be about motives, personal actions and results, and becomes solely a product of mere words, disconnected from anything else, then civilization is well on the road to destruction.

PiperPaul

"...mere words, disconnected from anything else..."

Yes, but there's all that huge demand for Raising Awareness!

David

I recall a previous post of yours… to the effect that “the cost of piety should be borne by the pious.”

Given the context, it seems a reasonable test of whether a piety is sincere. But as shown in the post linked above, Toynbee et al fail it, quite dramatically, and even suggesting that these people might actually live their professed values results in spluttering and fits of hostility. Again, Polly’s conscience is apparently troubled more by what you earn and keep than by what she earns and keeps, and so any life-changing acts of kindness will simply have to wait, perhaps indefinitely. As I said, it’s hardly a resounding affirmation of her professed moral imperatives.

R. Sherman

... there's all that huge demand for Raising Awareness!

It's funny how raising awareness of some issue always involves me contributing my money to allow some wanker to go on vacation to trek Nepal or something--to bring "attention" to human trafficking or whatnot.

Well, I want to raise awareness of the plight of Missouri's indigenous fish populations. This involves you contributing to my fund to acquire one of these puppies.

Do it for the bass!

Hedgehog

Though they may not pull the triggers themselves

I wouldn't be so sure. I'll grant that they are unlikely to be the psychopath in charge as that requires a purposeful ruthlessness that they do not possess, but I can easily see any one of them getting his jollies by shooting the enemies of the revolution once things are under way. The more so as it would compensate in their minds for their inferiority complex. Don't underestimate the bloodthirstiness of the chronically ineffectual who is finally allowed to give free rein to his delusions of grandeur. Or hers. These are the ranks from whom the sadists are drawn.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

Farnsworth: it is from among such people that the butchers of collectivism have always been drawn.

The operative words being past tense. The Venn diagram of, for example, the students and teachers who went into the Cambodian jungles and who made up the Khmer Rouge and a lot of pretenders whose idea of hardship is poor wifi connection has no overlap if the circles are even on the same piece of paper.

You can follow the herd. You can carry a mass-produced placard with a useless balsa stick attached. You can march in all weathers, by the thousands. [in the case of McKenzie's band of nitwits, by the half dozen or so] You can listen to the speeches made by people you are sure you heard at the rally at the end of the last Big One. You can then take your coach or train home sure in the knowledge that you achieved… what? Or, you identify the source of our problems – capitalism and the british class system – and fight back.

Yes, fight back, by their admission since 1982 and still losing despite all their "decisive battles". This is what we call a very large failure of introspection. Nobody is following these idiots, they don't even know what they allegedly stand for other than to fling crap - look at their calendar, 26 August, Brighton Burkini Solidarity Event, the next day Solidarity with the Kurds, failing to notice that the Kurds aren't what you would call on the same team as the Burkini proponents.

Contrary to these tools putting anyone in power, in the event of a real working class uprising, they would be the first given beet shovels and sent into the fields.

Hedgehog

When virtue ceases to be about motives, personal actions and results

I believe that is what David calls virtue signalling.

then civilization is well on the road to destruction.

Well, it was nice while it lasted. Jolly good show, fellows.

R. Sherman

...I can easily see any one of them getting his jollies by shooting the enemies of the revolution once things are under way.

I don't disagree. There will always be those who wish to bring their onanistic frenzied fantasies to reality. Most of them, however, are the sort who cannot be bothered with the implementation of theory. Implementation--beyond taking a dump in someone's front yard--is messy business. They're the thinkers, don't you know?

SumDumGuy

Most of them, however, are the sort who cannot be bothered with the implementation of theory

Only because there are only a handful of them. Cowards hunt in packs.

Trevor

... whether a piety is sincere ...

Dr McKenzie's understanding of being pious probably involves gristle wrapped in pastry.

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

They're the thinkers, don't you know?

AKA, the first ones against the wall in a real revolution.

Sc

David, what do you make of Vox Day?

David

what do you make of Vox Day?

I don’t know enough to have much of an opinion. I know he’s written a book called SJWs Always Lie, which is a pretty good title.

Fruitbat44

Class War . . . fighting for the working class??? I suspect that none of them will have done in an honest days work in their entirely life. And wouldn't recognise one if it bit a chunk out their bottom.

Btw, IMHO, Vox Day is a twerp. Okay he upsets the SocJus types, but then so does anyone else who isn't 100% Goodthink. I used to think that because he upset the PC Brigade he couldn't be that bad, but anyone who defends Marital Rape http://heatst.com/world/feminism-debates-vox-day-vs-louise-mensch-on-marital-rape/ or the idea that educating women interferes with their breeding http://www.johndbrown.com/what-vox-day-believes/

Frankly, in his own way, Vox Day's a big a wanker as those Class War yobbos.

ACTOldFart

Frankly, in his own way, Vox Day's a big a wanker as those Class War yobbos.

Newton's 3rd Law of Activism. To every politicised idiot there is an equal and opposite politicised idiot.

David

Newton’s 3rd Law of Activism. To every politicised idiot there is an equal and opposite politicised idiot.

Based on the little I’ve read, what strikes me is the degree to which leftist identity politics is being pushed against with… well, more identity politics. I can see the temptation, given the demographic and cultural concerns, and the endless accusations of white devilry, and I can see the argument that ‘If it’s so good for your tribe, why not mine?’ But it’s a walk past some pretty desolate territory.

james

Newton’s 3rd Law of Activism. To every politicised idiot there is an equal and opposite politicised idiot.

On the theme of equal and opposite idiots, has Glenn Reynolds joined this camp?

An extraordinary post on his usually sound website:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/242643/

PROTESTERS SHOULD HAVE A CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR SUCH ARRESTS, AND IT SHOULD INVOLVE KILLING MID-LEVEL SECURITY OFFICIALS AND THEIR FAMILIES: Venezuela Prepares for Massive Protests By Arresting Activists.

Microbillionaire

I have run into this debate before and from what I have read, Vox Day is literally, objectively correct that educating women interferes with their "breeding" as you so distastefully phrase it. Like the prevalence of currently incurable diseases, this may be an unhappy matter that one hopes to remedy at some future date, and it may be phrased in inflammatory terms, but it's a fact and should be faced, rather than calling Day a "wanker" for mentioning it. Intelligence has a hereditary component; education depresses women's fertility; there is a tradeoff here between credentialing more of the smartest women in one generation and having more smart people in future generations. If you favor more of the first, that is a defensible position, but for God's sake, you should be aware that you're paying for it with less of the second.

I also sympathize with his position on Marital Heartstring-tugging Emotionally Loaded Word Attempting To Steal The Argument Via Connotation: (henceforth HELWATSTAVC) marriage used to be a contract including the obligation of sex, under which one couldn't "helwatstavc" one's spouse any more than one could "steal" from the joint bank account one might have with one's spouse. Use it boorishly, yes; criminally, no, and the other term begs the question.

Today, of course, one might say the contract is rewritten and there's no such obligation. But that raises the question of just what is there to marriage today, with its ongoing redefinition down to "love" and the redefinition of that in turn down to "infatuation", along with green-card-marriages and tax-break-marriages and celebrity-headline marriages? Day has staked out the fairly reasonable position that a baseline marriage is a non-vacuous thing with concomitant expectations and obligations, and one of those obligations is sexual. If you don't like the thought of sexual obligations, consider not signing a contract that obliges you to perform, rather than accusing Day of defending one of the words in the English language with the most negative affect.

Captain Nemo

I should imagine that Mr Corbyn and Dr Mckenzie have mastered much the same manoeuvres as Polly Toynbee, who, despite her resentful denunciations of “the rich” - whom she names “pigs” - doesn’t in fact seem to have a problem with wealth – her own, I mean. Even when it exceeds that of the people she denounces as shameless, grasping and obscene.

I call this rationalisation the "Burton Defence", after the actor Richard Burton, who, when asked if he saw a contradiction between being a millionaire several times over and a communist, is alleged to have said, "I now earn one and a quarter of a million dollars per picture, and it sounds strange to say that at heart I am a Communist, but there is no contradiction because I don't exploit others." The underlying and unspoken implication being of course that it's fine for me to be wealthy, as I'm the one being exploited. But if you're exploiting others, then that's beyond the pale, and worthy of condemnation.

Ray

Microbillionaire,

Hear, hear. Feminism's attitude to reproduction seems to be that it's possible to have the pleasure of being a grandmother without first having had the hassle of being a mother.

Fruitbat44

Hi Microbillionaire,

I'm just reading what Vox Day says and drawing my own conclusions. And based on he says, and that's what he says and not you think (or like to think) he says, I conclude that the guy is a . . . well, perhaps wanker is a bit harsh.

How about twerp?

I mean someone who issues a sixteen point definition of the Alt-Right and . . . Yeah, I know the Alt-right is the SocJus types latest bogey-man; but just like VD just 'cos SocJus don't like 'em doesn't mean they're the good guys . . . anyway, at point 14 VD coincidentally(?)includes The Fourteen Words; creed of a white supremacist group.

http://archive.is/GFlAK and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

And given that I think twerp is a fair, or even kind, designation for him.

Jonathan

The fourteen words: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

Sounds absolutely awful.

As an occasional VoxDay reader, I'd say some of his analysis is spot on i.e that the #NeverTrump gang have expended more time and energy opposing Trump than they have ever done opposing the Democrats and that so-called conservatives have managed , over the last 30 years, to conserve little or nothing.
He says he's on the side of European civilisation and I haven't seen anything to suggest that he's not.

Fruitbat44

Hi Jonathon,

Well I'm sure Vox Day does make the occasional good point; I mean even a blind squirrel is right twice a day. :-)

And the words in themselves aren't particular awful, if you want to be charitable that is, I mean everyone wants a good future and to provide for their children. It's just well . . . the emphasis on white. I mean not all children, just white children. Not black, or Jewish, or the not-our-definition-of-white children . . . I just can't help but hear the stomp of jackboots.

But maybe that's just me.

However, the people who spoke them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(white_supremacist_group) Well, they were absolutely awful.

Microbillionaire
It's just well . . . the emphasis on white. I mean not all children, just white children. Not black, or Jewish, or the not-our-definition-of-white children . . . I just can't help but hear the stomp of jackboots.

But maybe that's just me.

I don't think it's just you.

But I do think it's you and unfortunate company; the SPLC denouncing White Lives Matter as a hate group while praising Black Lives Matter to the skies; the presstitutes demanding Trump disavow his endorsement by the Klan, now disavow it again, disavow it LOUDER I DIDN'T HEAR YOU while Clinton skates on being endorsed by the Communists; et cetera.

Fruitbat44

Hi Microbillionaire,

So I can't think that Vox Day's a twerp because some people, whom I also happen to think are twerps, also think he's a twerp?

That's "interesting"

Yes I agree that it is tiresome that Trump (IMHO a buffoon) is continually rapped in the nuts for the sort of things that Hilary (IMHO a weasel) gets a free-pass on.

But.

VD's sixteen point manifesto of the alt-right http://archive.is/GFlAK With it's emphasis on genetic purity (never mind the anti-free trade retoric) to me anyway, comes across as seriously creepy. Okay it tries to sugar coat it with a couple of points, but a sugar-coating does not change the basic contents.

And the basic contents are just white supremacist twaddle.

Microbillionaire

That's not what I said.

Fruitbat44

Well then Microbillionaire . . . so what did you say?

The only people hearing the stomp of jackboots in the phrase "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" are me and some people I'd prefer not to keep company with? Everyone else hears . . . something else? Is that what you said?

But please feel free to clarify. Or not. According to your choice. :-)

Microbillionaire

I don't know what everyone else hears. But if you do go that route of hearing jackboots from Vox Day because his words are similar to those of The Order, then the same logic implies that I should be hearing jackboots from you because your words are similar to those of BLM.

So do you want to play guilt-by-perceived-association or not?

Fruitbat44

Hi Microbillionaire,

Since we both (strange, but true) agree that BLM are, charitably well-intentioned but ill-focused, or less-charitably, ill-intentioned twerps, but eitherway people we'd both rather not be associated with, that point is irrelevant.

The debate is whether VD with his sixteen points of genetic purity, warped rejection of equality, belief that democracy is "unscientific" and unintentionally(?) borrowing jackboot stomping creeds from ultra-creepy white-supremacist groups . . . well, anyway, the debate is whether VD is a twerp or not.

From the evidence available I have drawn my conclusions.

Henry

Today, of course, one might say the contract is rewritten and there's no such obligation. But that raises the question of just what is there to marriage today, with its ongoing redefinition down to "love" ...

Breaking my own record of late additions to threads here - but yes I think this over and over again: marriage was (for a while) a religious event where a man and woman made promises to each other before their families, friends and before God (as they saw it). The idea was that they were definitely in for the long haul - and they'd be looking after any progeny they might get.

This happened with certain understandings of obligations and I don't think we can pretend that there wasn't an expectation that the couple were expected to ...er couple. Marriage wasn't anywhere near 21st century notions of "well they 'love' each other so let them have a nice ceremony (until they get sick of each other in 4 years or after 2 kids)"

The "contract has been changed" alright - I don't think anyone knows what it is any more.. Anyway superb comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll