Our diagnosis is that what really worries The Guardian here [about Argentina] is that this will all work. For where would the progressives be if classical liberalism were shown – once again – to work?
|
|||||
Our diagnosis is that what really worries The Guardian here [about Argentina] is that this will all work. For where would the progressives be if classical liberalism were shown – once again – to work? “Yes, like any philosophy, neoliberalism has its limits, and as with any philosophy, some of its adherents get overexcited and take things a bit too far. But given where we currently are, and where we are likely to go in the near future, focussing on the risk of “too much neoliberalism” seems bizarre to me. It is as if you were lost in the desert, and your main worry was that if you find an oasis, you might end up drinking too much water, and get overhydrated. Maybe one day, neoliberalism will be so popular that there really will be a non-trivial risk of taking it too far. If so – that will be a good day.” – Kristian Niemietz, Editorial Director, Institute of Economic Affairs. (Part of his commentary is this recent apologia to libertarians from Noah Smith, a US centre-leftist who appears to have some intellectual honesty and grit, which is refreshing, and so it appears, rare.) It might be helpful of critics of neoliberalism bothered to define it clearly. (Tim Worstall has a related takedown of George Monbiot’s recent forays into this territory. Worstall is, as you might expect, unimpressed.) In The Times, no less:
Safety is one thing. The article goes on to discuss consent and the risks to female athletes of speaking out on this topic. Before it’s possible to suggest a solution to a problem, it’s necessary to grasp the root cause of the problem itself. A sort of Reverse Chesterton’s Fence exercise. So, what has gone wrong? As we never tire of repeating it’s the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and successors. That is, for the past 78 years we’ve had that coherent national plan. With a long term vision. Run by the Rolls Royce minds of the Men in Whitehall who know best. Which is how we’ve ended up with the output we’ve got, something that would disgrace a Trabant factory. As it is national control of planning – the TCPA really does define who may build what where, is the nationalisation of land use – that is the problem then the solution is to get rid of what caused the problem. Blow up the TCPA, proper blow up – kablooie. After a recount, the Reform Party were declared the winners of the Runcorn and Helsby by-election by six votes. The first time they counted, Reform’s margin of victory was four votes. Assuming the second result is accurate, the first result was off by two. Not bad considering 32,740 votes were cast. Not a bad result for Reform, either. Sarah Pochin is Runcorn’s first MP from any party other than Labour in 52 years. If that result had come from the bowels of a voting machine many Labour supporters would have distrusted it. Because the count and the recount took place under the eyes of multiple observers – courtesy of the Sun live-streaming it, you can watch all three hours and twenty one minutes of the process here if you want to – few now will. The Press Gazette reports: Essex Police loses accuracy complaint versus Telegraph over Allison Pearson questioning
(The tweet in question criticised two-tier policing of Pro-Palestine marches.)
Why does it matter whether it was or was not a “non-crime hate incident”? Because Essex Police tried to claim that because Pearson was – ludicrously – being investigated for an actual crime (someone had complained that the tweet had incited racial hatred), that meant that the Telegraph could not report on their own columnist having the rozzers turn up unannounced at her door on Remembrance Sunday.
Renewables don’t risk blackouts, said the media. But they did and they do. The physics are simple. And now, as blackouts in Spain strand people in elevators, jam traffic, and ground flights, it’s clear that too little “inertia” due to excess solar resulted in system collapse. Also… here. The actual argument being made is that British actors, tax breaks, directors, scriptwriters, lovely Cotswold villages (and in the case of Bridgerton, the street outside my flat) are just such wonderful places to film, film with, that prices are rising. Therefore we’ve got to subsidise all this. The only reason we listen to fuckwits like this is because they’re pretty. Now, honestly, hands up. Who has ever known a pretty bird, handsome man, who can actually think? Even, actually has the base data to be able to think with? No, no, it’s not that the leavening of IQ and looks equals out over genes. Quite the opposite. Dullards in the sense of actual cretins and morons tend not to look good either. But the good looking have never had to think now, have they? So, they don’t. “My message to the Zionist Jews: We are going to take our land back, we love death for Allah’s sake the same way you love life. We shall burn you as Hitler did, but this time we won’t have a single one of you left.” – regular BBC contributor Samer Elzaenen. A report in the Telegraph says,
Er, why not? Given that the Telegraph article says that he made more than thirty posts on social media over the last decade that celebrated Palestinians killing Israeli civilians, including one post where he delightedly said that two murdered boys aged six and eight would “soon go to hell”, was it really beyond the power of the Arabic service of one of the biggest media organisations on Earth to do a simple internet search for his name? If the task of excluding self-identified Palestinian Nazis from giving regular commentary under the BBC name is too difficult for BBC Arabic, then BBC Arabic is a waste of public money. I hope that is the case, because the other possibility is that the BBC’s Arabic-speaking staff knew of Mr Elzaenen’s wish to exterminate the Jews but kept inviting him back because they want to do the same themselves. It’s not a universal opinion among Palestinians, but it’s not uncommon either. Canadians, be warned. One of the candidates in your country’s election tomorrow is accursed. This man has spoken of that of which no man should speak. Indeed, he has spoken of that of which neither man nor woman may ask why it is that of which no man may speak.
Do you really want a Canada where people can refer to biological clocks? Where men can refer to biological clocks – even while Donald Trump still exists?
Canadians, it is in your hands to ensure that your country is a place where, as Ginette Lavack wisely advised, no public conversation on such topics can be had. A song from the late 90s by Len. But this request (not to) was in vain, the UK government has announced £50,000,000 of funding to ‘dim the Sun’, in a bid to counter climate change, reports the Manchester Evening News, on the back of a paywalled report in the Daily Telegraph. Scientists are planning on ‘dimming the Sun’ in a bid to curb global warming. The UK government is set to announce funding of up to £50m of funding for Sun-dimming experiments in the coming weeks, the Telegraph reports. Does no one remember our wise Danish King Canute? He showed, over 1,000 years ago, that the State is all but powerless in the face of Nature. Of course not. Here is more on the plans. It comes as the National Environment Research Council (NERC) announced on April 3 that it will invest £10 million of new funding to study these solar radiation management schemes (SRM). According to Professor Mark Symes, the programme director for the Government’s advanced research and invention funding agency, known as Aria, there would be “small controlled outdoor experiments on particular approaches”. These experiments could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere or brightening clouds to reflect sunlight. Crucially, there is an acronym ‘SRM’, so this is one of those funding streams that will take on a monstrous life of its own. One might think that the Manchester Evening News (think Seattle but without the glamour) might have something to say seeing as it is a notoriously rainy city, but not a peep about the absurdity of it. Nor has there been any comment on the impact on solar energy generation, which provides ‘carbon neutral’ energy (but what about the deuterium lost in solar energy production?). The UK government seeks to control the Sun, and how much it shines on you. Chairman Mao and the four pests comes to mind. To be fair, these proposals have generated plenty of online ridicule, but that won’t stop it. That the UK is circling the drain is perhaps better shown by this Icarian hubris than anything else. And of course, once you accept their premises, you are only arguing about tactics and strategy, not the ends. |
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
Recent Comments