[My commentary] is a variation on the ’self-hating white liberal’ cliche, and it really doesn’t stick. To repeat myself: Just because we might feel ‘guilty’ about the evils of our own history, that does not mean we cannot celebrate and take pride in the positive aspects too.
Well, yes, Robert; I am waiting for that too. Unfortunately, this was never taught in my most English of schools. When I said that the Left attempt to suppress the "great and glorious parts of our history", what I should have said is that they already have.
While we are indeed pissed off with “filthy, wasteful, greedy humans” it does not mean we cannot or do not delight in the amazing things that humanity does achieve.
No, I am not indeed pissed off with “filthy, wasteful, greedy humans” because I think that what we have achieved far outweighs any disasters that might be perceived. Only whinging Leftists cunts think that what has been achieved has been bad. Lefties think that humanity is here to tend to the planet: we are not. That is a fundamental difference of thought, and why we lump the loony eviro-numpties in with the Left. Essentially, the Left believe that the planet and the poor wee animals come first: the Right believes that humans come first and that the rest of the planet is dragged with them.
Indeed, wonder at humanity’s capacity to achieve great things is the foundation for the Left-whiners’ obsession with equal opportunity. If half of the world’s population are living in poverty, then somewhere there is a Hendrix, dying of AIDS in a Zimbabwean township. Somewhere in Glasgow there is an Einstein, overdosing on heroin. There exist people who are born to fail, and no amount of hard work or focus will allow them to escape the downward spiral. Yes, this makes me miserable, but it is not a prior state of mind. The misery is borne of a lament for humanity’s wasted generations. I feel bad about it, but it is a noble shame.
I actually have no idea what Robert is trying to say here. Seriously.
Nor do I wallow in this misery, and neither does Chicken Yoghurt, the target of DK’s ire. If Justin complains from time to time, it is nevertheless a wholly pro-active complaint, and ultimately a positive thing.
Justin always complains, and never offers any solutions. That is why he fits in so well at The Guardian's Comment Is Free.
And then Robert utterly misses the point of what I was trying to say, and deploys the Left's limpest argument.
nd this is precisely the point. We have evolved to a stage where we do not need to behave like animals anymore.
I really don't know how I can make this point any clearer, but I will try:
- Humans attempt to interact through social—that is to say, enviromental mores—that make living together, especially with differing views, easier but,
- we are the products of purely animal, indeed, Selfish Genes and will thus, at base, behave as such.
How can I possibly make this clearer? A biologist might understand, I suppose. Look, it is simple: we have animal... Look, stuff this: I put all of this in my previous post and, if you simply cannot understand the difference between nurture and nature, then email me and I will explain in massive detail. If you understand this difference and have read my post but do not understand what I am talking about, then please fuck off: you are a moron.
Tribalism is not politics. It is not about ideas, just random geography.
Are British ideas and mores different from those of the French? Yes. Is it random geography? No. Is it predicated upon the landmass on which we are raised? Yes.
We have evolved to the stage where we should be able to overcome these tribal differences.
A genuine dream of the Left, but still bollocks for all that.
With the birth of every mixed-race child, with every child born to parents of different nationalities, the tribes mix.
Not if the culture is the same and, quite obviously, the indigenous culture wishes every culture who stays to adapt to theirs. Otherwise, you get bombs on subways.
The fact is, we shall soon reach the point where there is only homo sapien, and nothing more.
In my last post, I talked about people who had their heads rammed up their arses. This is such a man. Do you see this progression? I don't. And how would you define "soon"? The trouble is with the Left is that they have these wonderful ideas about what humans might be, and utterly ignore what they actually are. What my last post really meant to say is, "wake up and look at your fellow man: stop dreaming your utopias because they do not—and will never—exist, you fuckwits".
This is an anathema to many right-whiners, who are in thrall to tradition and want to preserve their little clubs/countries.
When polled, the majority of British people are opposed to EU integration. By Robert's definition, this makes them Right-wing. Nevertheless, this is what they believe.
So, would you, Robert, tell them that they are wrong: that you know best? Welcome to the Robert-Knows-Best state. Or dictatorship, as it might be known. Because you, naturally, know what's best. Just as we patriarchs of the blogosphere (the most irrelevent opinion-mongers of all of the possible peddlers of ideas) know that no one would vote BNP because they actually believe in racist policies.
While paying lip-service to the idea of free markets and unfettered investment, they deny the labour market the chance to move in the same way.
If fisking me, why not stick to my articles, you fool? All that you then do is to give falsity to your argument by ascribing another's views as my own.
DK asks us to unite and make Britain great again. Why so little ambition? If you’re going to be a benevolent dictator, you may as well conquer the entire world.
Because I have always tried to address the art of the possible, not of the unobtainable. Do you take my nomenclature as "Benign Dictator" seriously, Robert? Really? Do I think that I could run the world well, and certainly make more people happy than are now? Yup; I think that I would do a darn sight better than most. Do I think that I could run this country better than anyone else? Using the principle of "he who governs best, governs least", then you are damn right I could. Will it happen? No. Do I seriously consider making it happen? No.
Borders hamper free-trade, stopping human beings from interacting, trading and working with one-another.
Borders, as in barriers, may do: the existence of countries does not.
It is rare that I am immensely disappointed in Robert Sharp; usually I disagree with him but this may be the first time that I have felt that he is merely regurgitating learned opinions. Furthermore, like most people of his mindset, he still offers only criticism and no practical solutions.
The existence of countries is vital: humankind needs organisations of a certain limited size size to operate (the NHS is a classic example of not only how central planning fails, but also the limit of the size of governable human organisations. Think of human organisation as being similar to the physical laws of temperature, heats of reaction and partial pressure: the equilibrium determines government efficiences).
Robert promises more on nationality soon: I'm not holding my breath.