Saturday, October 18, 2008

Tim Lang: fuckwit of the day

Tim Lang: possessor of a pinched, mean and unpleasant face that you would never tire of punching.

Before we start on today's article, which I found via Timmy at the ASI, let us make absolutely clear that we have established Tim Lang's vested interest credentials—according to his profile at CiF...
Tim Lang is professor of food policy at City university and co-author with Erik Millstone of The Atlas of Food. He is land use commissioner on the Sustainable Development Commission and co-author of the SDC's 'Green, Healthy and Fair' report.

So, he is the kind of cunt who knits his own underwear.

Oh, no, wait: no he isn't.

He is the kind of cunt who would insist that you knit your own underwear, whilst continuing to ensure that his soft, roomy drawers are tailored in Jermyn Street.

So, you can imagine what hideous bullshit he is spouting today, the socialist whore.
World Food Day gives us all a chance to think about the state of Britain's food system and how our eating fits into the world of food. The outlook is sobering.

Only because you paternalistic cunts are trying to limit the amount that we proles are allowed to drink.
World figures on malnutrition show a rise after decades of fall.

Ah, yes: perhaps Tim is now going to mention the disastrous effect that biofuels have had on world food prices...
Yet we here in the UK are overeating our way to ill-health.

As is our choice, as adults. Food consumption isn't a complicated idea: if you consume more energy than you burn, that excess will be stored as fat.
We think of food problems such as crop failures, droughts and floods happening far away, but give less attention to how our food supply chain has a large ecological footprint.

Oy! Tim! What about the biofuels?
Calculations vary...

This is a phrase that always signals that there is a massive load of bullshit ahead...
... but if everyone ate like us, we'd need three or four planets.

For fuck's sake, Lang, this whole Malthusian nightmare has been discredited so many fucking times, you twat. Advances in food-production technology have allowed us to respond to these sorts of problems; the reason that people are starving is not solely for the lack of food per se, but because they cannot afford what food there is. And the reason why we have a (very slight) shortage and the reason why they cannot afford the food are the same: interference by state bodies have created distortions in the market.

You Green cunts are one of the very worst for this: you deplore the advancement of food-growing technologies, so creating less food. You insist that we all use vast amounts of biofuels, with the result that the land that we do have is switched to growing crops to be burned rather than eaten.

Many governments (and, most egregiously, the EU) have created these distortions and they are killing thousands of people the world over—and it is the fault of lobbying by people like you, you murdering son-of-a-bitch.
The harsh reality is, that if we don't make changes to the food system soon, a major food crisis will hit. This isn't a problem for others. It's our problem. UK politicians need to push food policy up their priority list fast.

How might they do that, I wonder? I know! They should throw oodles of cash at a "professor of food policy at City university" and probably at the "Sustainable Development Commission" too, eh?

You, Tim Lang, are just another rent-seeking bastard, aren't you? Yes, you are.
But we also need to emulate the French and US and unashamedly rebuild growing capacity here, too. It's dropping fast from a peak in the mid 1980s, when we produced 80% of foods consumed here that could be grown here. Now it's near 60%. Why are we using others' land to grow food we could grow here?

Look, you cunt, the reason that we grow less food is because we do not need to. As Timmy puts it...
It's called trade laddie. That voluntary exchange, that exploitation of comparative advantages, the division of labour that makes the modern world so stinking rich. The very thing that makes it possible for two grown men to spend their time, as we both do, pondering upon food policies rather than stooped double over a hoe in the fields growing the stuff.

But you can bet your last quid that, come the Greenie revolution, Tim will not be breaking his back over a hoe, oh no. It will be you and I doing that, whilst Tim and his mates look down approvingly from their well-heated Islington apartments; whilst we are tilling the soil, menaced by the guards' machine-guns, Tim will be guzzling his way through a bottle of Bacchus whilst producing more pointless papers on "sustainability" that are, in fact, thinly disguised totalitarian instruction booklets.

My god, but you are such a cunt.
The Treasury is fixated on reforming the common agricultural policy by which it means cutting budgets. A new initiative is needed, to create a common sustainable food policy, based around sensible land use and health.

Much as I hate to say it, Tim, the Treasury is on the right track here; if you want decent use and husbanding of resources, we need to abolish not only the CAP but also the CFP. Both of these measures—but especially the CFP—have been absolutely fucking devastating in terms of sustainability. It's because those who dictate to us have no fucking clue what they are talking about—and yes, that includes you, you moron.
The new food policy has to produce more food from less land, be more equitable and improve public health. This requires new skills and R&D designed around sustainability.

Right. And this would involve giving you more money and power...?
Colleges of agriculture and universities ought to be central to that.

Oh yes: yes it would.
Experiments are popping up all over the UK of more local, community-based, connected food supplies.

Yes, Tim: isn't the adaptability of the market wonderful? All of these things are springing up without government help and, in all too many cases, in the teeth of state interference. Let us acknowledge the ingenuity of Man!
In our own lives we can change our eating and shopping habits. Avoiding food that takes a lot of resources to produce like meat and dairy products, and growing more food ourselves could change our food system from the bottom up.

Well, we can do that, but what is we don't want to?
But individual action is not enough.

Oh, here we fucking go...
It requires choice-editing, not personal choice.

"Choice-editing"? Fucking "choice-editing"? What the fuck is this shit? As Timmy says...
No. Sorry, but no. I'm an adult and I, like all the others who share that distinction, am entirely capable of both taking my own decisions and also of bearing the consequences of them. While you've slightly disguised your intention by calling it "choice-editing" your aim is obvious enough. You want everyone to do as you would will it, not as they, in that irritating fractious manner of free people enjoying their liberty, would. And for that, Tim Lang, you need to be assailed, even if only in a blog post.

Although it would be much more amusing to assail you in person, you totalitarian little shit. Because that is what you mean by "choice-editing", eh? Removing people's ability to make choices about their own lives: that is totalitarian, is it not?

And as we all know, Tim, that regime worked so well for sustainability in Russia, didn't it? Stalin wiped out over 50 million of his own people and the remainder still didn't have enough to eat. Mao Tse Jung did for another 100 million Chinese and the remainder still didn't have enough to eat. When will you fuckers learn that totalitarian economies don't fucking work? Let me spell it out for you again, you fucking tit.

Totalitarian economies never. Fucking. Work.

But that does bother you, Tim, does it? Because you won't be out there, labouring in the fields and starving, oh no. You see yourself in your nicely heated dacha, eating and drinking the best of everything.

Tim Lang is a dangerous cunt who should be ignored and, if he insists on pushing his worthless opinions forward, he should be actively removed. For he conforms to the Devil's first rule of those who advocate totalitarianism...

Those who advocate restrictions in people's choices always assume that they will be the ones who decide what those choices are to be. Those who advocate totalitarianism, of however mild or serious a flavour, always see themselves as the ones in power.

So fuck you, Tim Lang: fuck you right in the ear. I'm going to sharpen my cockroaches and excite my candiru fish, and then I'm coming for you, you hear? I'm coming for you...


Panopticon Britain said...

The environmentalists have become nothing more than eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too, anti-science, fascist douche bags. Their "green credentials" are their only religion.

...choice editing. Fuck me with a lamp post....

Prodicus said...

One of your better pieces, dear sir. Congratulations.

mitch said...

You might think this fool underwent an operation to directly link his colon to his voice box the amount of self serving shite he emits.

Shaun said...

But our new Green Overlords actively *want* economic failure and mass-starvation as they want a significant depopulation of human beings infesting their beloved Gaia. They believe there are too many of us; ever asked one what they think the ideal global population level should be?

The Filthy Smoker said...

'Choice-editing'. Sweet Jesus. I haven't come across that bit of newspeak before and hope I never do again. The more these fuckers rebrand their nasty little policies, the more sinister they sound.

El Draque said...

Is there anything more pointlessly stupid than the assertion "we need two or three planets"?
What kind of rhetorical point are they trying to make?
I feel like shouting "BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE ! So stop talking about using two. Make your point in a way that makes sense."
Naturally I am too polite to do so.
But my fuse is running short.

John A said...

Producing too little food and the result is a rising rate of obesity? Nice trick, that. Maybe he is thinking of kwashiorkor [sic] which makes starving peopple show expanded abdomens.

Not that obesity is on the increase. Especialy not true of children. A few visits to (a US site, but often references sources from Scotland and England) will show that what is published by government and other interested parties is almost the direct opposite of what the referenced data/studies actually show.
*Exposed Again*
"Oz government vows to fight childhood obesity epidemic even as its own statistics show no change
in over ten years and improvements in health/death raes"

As to increasing food production in the Home Islands, maybe getting the likes of Chuckles the Clown Prince out of the "organic" industry would help?