Monday, June 30, 2008

You fucking what?

Via the equally incredulous Harry Haddock, here is a particularly egregious quote from an article by some 16 year old know-nothing at LabourHome.
It isn't capitalism that generates wealth. It's competition matched by a strong welfare state.

You fucking what? Look, you pig-ignorant tit, the state generates no wealth: the state has no money but what it steals from the people of this country. The Welfare State does not generate wealth. It might redistribute it—very inefficiently—and it might provide what this socialist nitwit would consider to be essential services, but it does not generate wealth. Ever. At all.
Every paper barrages us with statistics about how our children are getting dumber, and how education standards our getting much, much worse. This is a lie.

Uh huh. If you say so, sunshine. Although, on this showing, I can't help feeling that the standards are even worse than the eeeeeeevil media have portrayed them...

Now, why don't you bugger off and play with your skateboard or something...?

49 comments:

Letters From A Tory said...

Education standards are getting worse. Just ask anyone who has looked at international league tables at any point since 1997.

What an idiot.

Mark Wadsworth said...

What LOAT says.

The 'state' however, can generate wealth in exercising its core functions, which boils down to law and order, defence, refuse collection, immunisation programmes. And precious little else.

All these functions cost barely 5% or 10% of GDP. The other 40% of GDP that they spend is quite possibly wasted and clearly does not create wealth.

Whether or not a bit of sensible redistribution (e.g. education vouchers, old age pensions) adds to overall 'wealth' or 'happiness' (assuming the two to be interchangeable) of society is a different topic and difficult to prove one way or another.

Adam McNestrie said...

The article is somewhat juvenile in its tone and there is a naïve overstridency to it, but your post totally misrepresents it. You pick up on a strange formulation about wealth generation that is completely incidental to the main thrust of the article and place an extreme interpretation on it. This isn’t a piece about the state being the motor of growth, it is an article about the way in which monopolistic rightwing media poison our political culture and distort our perspective on ameliorative state action.

Your post comes across as hysterical and spitefully ad hominem. His attack is on the Murdoch media, but he could just as well have written an article excoriating ignorant, intemperate bloggers who scream and stamp their feet and swear inarticulately instead of engaging in genuine discussion.

I’m sure that Devil’s Kitchen gets far more hits than my own blog – I read that conceited, onanistic post as well – but you have to ask whether the cost of this look-at-me blogging is worth it. If you want to read a real politics blog, link to my blog Just who the hell are we?:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

Roger Thornhill said...

Adam,

If that is the case the article is fatally flawed anyway.

We have authoritarian media, both left and right wing. THAT is the problem.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Adam,

"This isn’t a piece about the state being the motor of growth, it is an article about the way in which monopolistic rightwing media poison our political culture and distort our perspective on ameliorative state action."

No, it is a point about media ownership in general, not just right-wing media. But that is irrelevent. I was commenting on this one ridiculously stupid point.

But the whole main thrust of his article is equally fucking stupid: the media responds to its audience, it does not dictate the agenda. This has been proved (as far as it is able to be so) time and time again. See Tim Worstall's blog for more.

"Your post comes across as hysterical and spitefully ad hominem."

Welcome to The Kitchen.

"I’m sure that Devil’s Kitchen gets far more hits than my own blog...

Yes, I do. Because I am entertaining, not trying to be a deadtree media outlet on the web. Newsflash, Adam: the traditional media already have websites chock full of tedious, considered comment.

... – I read that conceited, onanistic post as well – but you have to ask whether the cost of this look-at-me blogging is worth it."

Yes, it is. Do you know why? Because I, the writer of this blog, enjoy doing it.

"If you want to read a real politics blog, link to my blog Just who the hell are we?"

This is the second such crow-barring of a link to your blog that you have left here in short order: it's bordering on spam, frankly. There is a link to your blog in your name header.

But anyway, since you have -- rather unwisely -- drawn attention to yourself, I shall get around to fisking you in due course. Anyone who can write desperate, fourth form, Eng. Crit. crap like "The British don’t really hate their politicians, they hate themselves" deserves everything that he's going to get.

Oh, and for the record, I think I'm pretty brilliant. But I loathe politicians. This is because they are almost all loathesome and they are in a loathesome profession.

DK

Adam McNestrie said...

You’re deeply naïve when it comes to the “deadtree media.” Simplistic defenders of capitalism, democratic politics and big media always argue that power is entirely bottom-up. We get the media we deserve; the companies make the products that we want; the voters respond to our whims. It’s not that there’s no truth in those views, it’s that they’re one-sided. The relationships and power flows are reciprocal. Our preferences and political views are shaped by the media outlets as well as being shaped by them. In a world of media saturation it is impossible for us to look in from the outside and express our preferences.

Surely it’s sub-Freudian psychoanalytical crap, rather than ‘desperate, fourth form, Eng. Crit. crap’ ? Anyway, I’m not going to defend my position here in any depth, the post can stand up for itself. Your facile self-love, by the way, proves nothing. Deep-down, beneath all the bile and the cursing and the shredded spleen, the glib words and the self-deception, maybe, just maybe, you do hate yourself. You wouldn’t know if it was unconscious, would you? And maybe, just maybe, that’s why you’re so cynical about our politicians. But you wouldn’t know that either.

Bring on the fisking.

leg-iron said...

...you do hate yourself. You wouldn’t know if it was unconscious, would you?

I can barely type for laughing.

The 'We know best' attitude now extends into our subconscious minds. Labour now know what we're thinking better than we know ourselves.

Saya it all.

Wyrdtimes said...

A bit harsh on skaters imo - funny though.

leg-iron said...

That should be 'says it all', before you pick me upon my typing skills (I'm not a typist).

Dave said...

Are you sure that Adam's not one of them googlefriendly spam generators?

I left school in 1967. I can assure you that exams were tougher then. They were marked in a completely different way. You started with zero marks and gained a mark for every correct answer. The overall results were then amended so that only the top 5% got an A grade- irrespective of how well the rest of us did.
It would appear that the current system gives everyone 100% to start with and deducts a mark for every mistake.
It's most definitely not the same.
That's why we have university graduates who can't spell or don't understand grammar or can't add up without a calculator.
Under the current system, I am going to enter the Olympics, confident that I will be awarded a gold medal just for showing up.

leg-iron said...

Education isn't going downhill?

This suggests otherwise:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080630/tuk-uk-britain-exam-fa6b408.html

The Yahoo news links only last a day or so. If I can find a more permananent link, I'll have my post for the day.

Adam McNestrie said...

Well, I've never been called a 'spam generator' before. I think it's quite a good insult, though...

Anonymous said...

Local Government Association shock campaign launch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkxVegST9tA

Sapient said...

Let me just do an ad hominem attack on the original post -

"The amount of children being able to add up, and count up well rose from 59% to 79%".

I seriously doubt that numeracy has risen. Clearly grammar/vocabulary isnt the strong point of the little tit writing the post since the correct word to use instead of "amount" would be "percentage".

So over what period do we think the tit is referring to? Probably 1997 to 2005? So I assume he means the percentage of students passing maths GCSE. Does anyone really believe that standards have risen so swiftly? Of course not. So it is dumbing down of exams.

On his main point: I dont understand his reference to pre Thatcher media laws? We had virulently right wing media barons prior to 1979. The NOW was in Murdoch's hands in 1968, and the Sun in 1969. Mrs T declined to refer the acquisition of the Times and Sunday Times to the MMC, but this can hardly be seen as a new law. Tabloid journalism sells.

I suspect the tit got his views from reading Polly T. Sad, stupid and wrong.

Kay Tie said...

"the state has no money but what it steals from the people of this country"

Not strictly true. The state 'owns' certain common resources, such as the radio spectrum. It can auction access to these common assets. One might even suggest that it should have auctioned territorial waters fishing permits rather than allow quotas or a free-for-all.

kevin the gerbil said...

"Deep-down, beneath all the bile and the cursing and the shredded spleen, the glib words and the self-deception, maybe, just maybe, you do hate yourself. You wouldn’t know if it was unconscious, would you?" - Adam McNumpty

And there you have Freudian analysis in a nutshell. If there were an invisible cat in the chair the chair would look empty. The chair looks empty; therefore there is an invisible cat in the chair.

How to prove anything. Goodnight Vienna.

Crawl back down your drain, Adam, you self-regarding little twerp.

Henry Crun said...

I read that conceited, onanistic post as well – but you have to ask whether the cost of this look-at-me blogging is worth it. If you want to read a real politics blog, link to my blog Just who the hell are we?:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

Irony Alert! Irony Alert!!

Anonymous said...

Adam, please die in a fire. Preferably now-ish.

Anonymous said...

Look, this dickwad McNestrie is trolling. He is trying to provoke a reaction from DK - preferably in the form of a fisking - in order to generate more hits on his website.

This is just attention-seeking of the most pitiful kind. He's a latching onto a far better, far more popular, writer on the premise that the negative attention he generates is still attention.

And attention is what you deserve, isn't it, Adam? You know that you're cleverer than normal people. You set up a blog to show the world just how clever you are....but no-one visits it, do they, Adam?

No-one gives a damn what you say or what you think and here's this cunt, Devil's Kitchen, with readers up the wazoo. And you can't help but feel jealous.

You're a fucking narcissist, Adam, and a tedious uninteresting one at that. You're not even an entertaining lefty, like Chicken Yoghurt. You're an over-earnest, overgrown know-it-all loser who can't quite understand why your brilliance, so obvious to you, goes unrecognised by others. You were a prefect in sixth form, for Christ's sake! You memorised all the important bits from past Labour "leaders". Success should have followed....

...but it hasn't.

Give it up, Adam. Delete your blog and stop shitting up superior sites with your wanktastic guff. Also consider suicide.

Ian_QT said...

@adam mcnestrie: Your blog is very dull.

Anonymous said...

2.03

I am sitting here with tears abseiling down my haggard cheeks, as I hope is young Adam, if for diametrically opposite reasons.

Hats off.

Blue Eyes said...

Literacy among the proletariat has increased by 53%, tractor production is up by 12.4%, the rodent population has fallen by 50%.

Overall, the standard of living has risen by over 20% in the last year, and to celebrate, Big Brother will be increasing the choco ration to 25 grammes per week.

Henry Crun said...

Adm Mcnestrie: Read your blog. It is shite. Your are up your own arse.

William Gruff said...

'Every paper barrages (sic) us with statistics about how our children are getting dumber, and how education (sic) standards our (sic) getting (sic) much, much worse. This is (sic) a lie.'

Quod erat demonstrandum?

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7479758.stm

silas said...

The BBC also brought us today a nice page about people's reminiscences of the 11-plus.

And I think the second comment down may be from someone who is lying.

You can see it here

Trixy said...

Adam said "it is an article about the way in which monopolistic rightwing media poison our political culture and distort our perspective on ameliorative state action."

Reading between the lines of that statement straight from the essay of a politics dept geek at a left wing university, the media is

1) not monopolistic by the very definition of monopoly
2) Not right wing. Haven't you ever read the Indy, Guardian, Mirror or any of the local papers which Trintity Mirror own?
3) Insofar as the media 'distort our perspective' if someone is reliant on a paper to form their own opinions then they're not particularly bright and probably won't seek to be opinion formers.

Sapient said...

@Adam Mcnestrie. Went to your blog. Puerile and third rate. Won't be going back.

V said...

I guess the schools can't be that bad if this 16 yr old socialist can write an article which is readable - if factually wrong.

Although I am thinking in terms of monkeys, typewriters and a certain bard!

Luck might have had a bit part in it!

Antipholus Papps said...

I've stumbled across Adam quite a few times over the past fortnight on both the Telegraph website and Comment Is Free. He plugs his blog after every single banal and waffling comment he makes. Which I inevibly read before seeing his name and thinking: 'well, there's 10 seconds of my life I'll never have back!' Like a poor man's Michael White.

iain dale's manbreasts said...

Silas at 3:40,

I did the mock 11+, & got all the questions right, but I made up for it by not bothering to write about myself as a scarecrow.

I actually did sit the 11+, & passed, but went to the local comp anyway because I didn't know anyone who was going to the grammar school & I wanted to be with everyone else. A strange decision given that I regarded them as twats & still do, but that's how a child's mind works.

I'm 23, & I am far better educated than my parents & grandparents, despite having been to a sink school on a council estate in Stoke. When I read some right-wing cunt in the Daily Heil or equivalent talking about how good the 50s were, I thank my lucky stars that I live in 2008.

no longer anonymous said...

"I'm 23, & I am far better educated than my parents & grandparents, despite having been to a sink school on a council estate in Stoke. When I read some right-wing cunt in the Daily Heil or equivalent talking about how good the 50s were, I thank my lucky stars that I live in 2008."

I did my A Levels in 2002 and there was definitely dumbing down going on. I got full marks in an exam where I got a diagram wrong and my friend and I were both getting hier marks than we had in class tests.

tony iommi out of black sabbath said...

I think standards are much lower than they should be, I just dispute that there was some golden age when they were higher.

There was a lot of illiteracy 50 years ago, in all probability more than there is now, but it went unnoticed because unskilled work was easy to come by... so there are working-class old people who can't read & write, but as they've never been called upon to read or write no one notices or cares. I really do suggest that the fuckers here go & meet some old people who grew up in poor families in the old days before they start...

Nowadays, literacy is far more important, so the minority (probably a shrunken & shrinking minority) who aren't up to scratch have a harder time than their grandparents did. But that's because society has changed, & the academically weak are left behind rather than being able to get unskilled jobs, not because of anything that has happened in the education system.

Anonymous said...

Take a look at the exam papers set at every level even as recently as ten years ago.

Then take a look at the exam papers set at every level today.

I actually teach at a Russell Group university. The new students we get, even if they have high marks at A Level or Higher, lack basic skills that should have been inculcated before the age of 16.

Such shortcomings were rare ten years ago and non-existent twenty years ago. Now they are the rule to the point where a good number of humanities lecturers are spending more time teaching remedial English than teaching their own subject.

For fun, scout around the websites of the top thirty universities in the country. Take a look at their Special Needs sections. Take a look at the extra tutoring and mentoring that's on offer. Then ask yourself why the best universities in the country should have to teach 19 and 20 year olds the difference between a noun and a verb.

bintyd said...

Well done Devil, a worthy post to say the least. Now if we can only get these lefty nutbags out of power FOR GOOD.

Jones said...

"I'm 23, & I am far better educated than my parents & grandparents, despite having been to a sink school on a council estate in Stoke. When I read some right-wing cunt in the Daily Heil or equivalent talking about how good the 50s were, I thank my lucky stars that I live in 2008."

How about trying an 'A' level exam paper from the 1960's or 70's? Just to prove your contentions. Go on.

Anonymous said...

Worth noting from Mr Mcnestrie's inestimable blog is the "About Me" page.

Public school, Trinity Cambridge and a job with DEFRA.

no longer anonymous said...

"I'm 23, & I am far better educated than my parents & grandparents, despite having been to a sink school on a council estate in Stoke. When I read some right-wing cunt in the Daily Heil or equivalent talking about how good the 50s were, I thank my lucky stars that I live in 2008."

Are you by any chance acquainted with Mr Elsby, Stoke's most prominent politician?

the a&e charge nurse said...

Oh give it a rest over exam standards will you.

The last 30-40 years are but a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms - neurological development simply cannot not happen that quickly.

Today, we [as a species] are just as stupid/clever as we were 20, 30, or 40 years ago.
Exam performance merely reflects conditions in the classroom not the ability of candidates.

Anyway, even if punters did get slightly better A-level results a few years back it's not as though these achievements have confered any significant advantage to either our political or social systems.

Any regular visitor to the DK soon realises that there is very little to be optimistic about these days.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"Any regular visitor to the DK soon realises that there is very little to be optimistic about these days."

Although you may be surprised to hear that, generally speaking, I get optimistic about things; the commenters here often show that there are people around who are (a) intelligent, (b) willing to think about both concepts and practicalities, and (c) angry about the current situation.

Well, it cheers me up...!

DK

Ian_QT said...

@a&e charge nurse: I agree that people's potential can't have changed much in the past 40 years.

What I suspect has changed is that fewer people are reaching their potential because of pseudo-egalitarianism (AKA the 'all must have prizes' attitude) that devalues real achievement, to the level where marks are given for writing "fuck off" on an exam paper in 2008. The exam scam (aka 'mark moderation') covers up the fact that fewer students are reaching their potential.

The dubious "achievements" of pupils getting an A for what 30 years might have only been awarded a D does not confer any advantage to anyone, it just renders the grades virtually meaningless.

cassandra said...

Adam McNestrie has not yet learned that socialism is evil and corrupting I think? I suppose if you are a middle class child brought up in comfort you can afford the luxury of hating the wealth provider and perhaps Adam grew up secretly hating his father the wealth creator not realising just how soul crushingly hard it is to generate real wealth by running a company and having the responsibility of having employees who look to you to provide for their families. I can imagine a spoilt middle class kid never wanting for anything, never knowing hunger or poverty thinking in his mind that money just grows on trees or falls from the fucking sky? Socialism is a parasite that only survives on anothers hard work, oh yes the parasite will try to justify the free ride and the theft from others but in the end the parasite sucks the host dry! If Adam had to toil and struggle to earn a living AND had the burdon of creating wealth for others to share then I can promise you and him that he would lose his appetite for socialism very quickly indeed! Socialism has for many years done all in its power to destroy the British will to create wealth and appealed to peoples worst aspect, jelousy.
I see two distinct types of socialist, one is the poor socialist brought up to feel jelousy and envious of those who have more than they do and the other is the middle class spoilt child brought up with everything they want with no conception of how to work or the real value of money and just how hard it is to earn it, its like they just think that money is free and can be thrown around like confetti and that the poor if given enough money would live lives just like their own. I think Adam is the spoilt middle class type who has never wanted for anything in his life and has never had to earn money either!

Anonymous said...

@Cassandra

Fucking spot on.

Carl Richardson said...

If you think that’s bad DK you should read his 'Redefining Liberty' post.

Apparently we all have the “freedom not to be exploited”, even if it’s our own fault.

It also includes this pearl of wisdom:

“If you chuck in regulations to stop supermarkets from selling cheep booze, and ban alcohol advertising of sport, it could enhance liberty.”

Right...

Is Self Responsibility really that hard of a concept to grasp?

Oh and Adam-want-to-be-a-psychoanalyst-McNestrie, I must commend on you on your ability to make a succinct point...

Bob said...

It's virtually impossible to claim to be a Socialist without being a hypocrite, and Socialist/Marxist 'intellectuals' from privileged backgrounds are the biggest hypocrites of all.

I've never come across one who didn't talk absolute shite.
I’ve never come across one who wasn’t motivated by envy and spite.
I’ve never come across one who understood even basic economics.
I’ve never come across one who didn’t endlessly waffle on about ‘the masses’ or the 'poor downtrodden working classes' whilst enjoying all the privileges that capitalism has bought him and his parents.
And I’ve never come across one who didn’t know absolutely fuck all about the ‘the masses’ or the working classes.

They’ve read so many books (the usual cunts: Marx, Engels, Derrida, Foucault et al), and learned precisely nothing about life, and nothing about books.

Pity them.

chuck said...

It's funny, this same guy claims to have "Libertarian instincts" yet says:

"And as much as it offend my libertarian instincts, banning under-21's from buying alcohol from off-licenses worked incredibly well in a trial in Scotland."

"If you chuck in regulations to stop supermarkets from selling cheep booze, and ban alcohol advertising of sport, it could enhance liberty."

"And a great way to prevent exploitation, would be to support Roberta Blackman-Woods latest bill, to stop the explosion of lap-dancing clubs"

"I think it should be legislated to stop any child who hasn't had an MMR jab to start school."

patrick said...

DK,

How do you stomach reading Labour party blogs?...

windy blow said...

All socialism is piss-poor, but the upper class prats who play at it are the real tossers.

Why? Because they know they can always run away from it if the going gets tough – they go and run home to mummy and daddy's money.

Being a committed leftie is a game they play but dangerously, they play it by trying to control and spoil people's lives. If it looks as if it might not be for them, they can slip away leaving the rest of us up shit creek.

Chalcedon said...

Adam, what a load of old bollocks those posts are. OMG you'll be shifting a paradigm soon or burining fuel on the tarmac or going post nouvelle cuisine tensor calculus positivism.

The post in question shows a vapid naievite........capitalism doesn't create wealth.....oh please. University whistleblowers have shown tertiary education is dumbing down, let alone secondary. Have you actually looked at recent A level papers? Talk about simplistic.