Jacob Rees-Mogg comes across as quite nasty, partisan and not actually intellectually curious.
He achieved nothing in high office.
Fuck knows what deep psychological disturbance lies beneath his frock coat. I presume he was raped as a youth by his chauffeur.
I doubt it's anything that interesting. He's just a basic over-entitled prick. I remember reading about how he had been given some shares in a company by his rich dad when he was a kid, and turned up at the AGM to berate the management because the dividends weren't high enough. There are two Viz characters - Spoilt Bastard and Victoria Dad. Rees Mogg somehow went straight from the first to the second, with nothing in between. It's not even worth being irritated by him, except in how badly it reflects on us as a country that he is a senior person in public life.
I maintain that anyone who talks, acts and dresses like an absurd pastiche is psychologically damaged in some way.
I don't think he does, really. He clearly likes double breasted suits, and isn't a slave to fashion, but it's not a costume.
Jacob Rees-Mogg comes across as quite nasty, partisan and not actually intellectually curious.
He achieved nothing in high office.
Fuck knows what deep psychological disturbance lies beneath his frock coat. I presume he was raped as a youth by his chauffeur.
I doubt it's anything that interesting. He's just a basic over-entitled prick. I remember reading about how he had been given some shares in a company by his rich dad when he was a kid, and turned up at the AGM to berate the management because the dividends weren't high enough. There are two Viz characters - Spoilt Bastard and Victoria Dad. Rees Mogg somehow went straight from the first to the second, with nothing in between. It's not even worth being irritated by him, except in how badly it reflects on us as a country that he is a senior person in public life.
I maintain that anyone who talks, acts and dresses like an absurd pastiche is psychologically damaged in some way.
Yes when an individual presents relentlessly as a 'persona' it's likely something is off. Doesn't have to be something dark but it might be. This is one of the things that puts me off Boris Johnson.
Braverman’s tweet, referring to the “alleged behaviour of some asylum seekers” is a typical dog-whistle.
You have to wonder what motivates her.
I absolutely detest her. She’s a stain on humanity . And the annoying smirks she pulls , utterly vile woman who gets off on the misery of others .
I haven’t noticed the smirk. I thought Patel was the smirker.
Braverman strikes me as a rather thick, excessively self-regarding, and the sort of person who loves to exercise petty authority over others.
In another world, she’s be a mid-level HR manager.
Funny how time changes one’s perspective. I rather respect Priti Patel now. She seems a lot more intelligent, somewhat more nuanced and independent thinking than many of her right wing bedfellows. Still don’t like her politics, but at least she seems to have a mind of her own.
Patel was also quite nasty, and a bully too. I grant you that she seemed to have a certain cunning and independence of thought.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
Reading that, I cannot decide if you are an entitled fool or a bloody idiot.
I think JRM’s most obnoxious statement was probably in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire.
“Discussing the recent Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, Rees-Mogg claimed the victims lacked “common sense” because they didn’t flee the burning building. He said to the presenter: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that didn’t happen.””
I listened to the whole interview, and I completely disagree that the statement was obnoxious. It is utterly tragic that the victims were advised to remain in their flats, when their common sense (in it's rawest form) would have been screaming at them to get out.
He very clearly said in that interview that of course someone with more intelligence like himself or the interviewer would have ignored the fire brigade. The implication was that the people in the tower were too stupid to act in their own interests.
I think JRM’s most obnoxious statement was probably in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire.
“Discussing the recent Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, Rees-Mogg claimed the victims lacked “common sense” because they didn’t flee the burning building. He said to the presenter: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that didn’t happen.””
I listened to the whole interview, and I completely disagree that the statement was obnoxious. It is utterly tragic that the victims were advised to remain in their flats, when their common sense (in it's rawest form) would have been screaming at them to get out.
He very clearly said in that interview that of course someone with more intelligence like himself or the interviewer would have ignored the fire brigade. The implication was that the people in the tower were too stupid to act in their own interests.
Too stupid, no. Too beholden to authority, self-evidently yes.
Imagine being a relatives of one of the victims hearing what he said. He wasn’t casually opining on PB, he was giving a TV interview in the raw aftermath of a tragedy, and essentially telling people their loved ones died because they didn’t have the presence of mind to get out. It’s on a similar level to someone commenting that a murdered woman was taking a risk walking alone at night in revealing clothes.
I’m sure it wasn’t a deliberate slur, but I think it did betray a callousness that also features in his views on, for example, abortion in cases of rape or the raising of universal credit.
Jacob Rees-Mogg comes across as quite nasty, partisan and not actually intellectually curious.
He achieved nothing in high office.
Fuck knows what deep psychological disturbance lies beneath his frock coat. I presume he was raped as a youth by his chauffeur.
I doubt it's anything that interesting. He's just a basic over-entitled prick. I remember reading about how he had been given some shares in a company by his rich dad when he was a kid, and turned up at the AGM to berate the management because the dividends weren't high enough. There are two Viz characters - Spoilt Bastard and Victoria Dad. Rees Mogg somehow went straight from the first to the second, with nothing in between. It's not even worth being irritated by him, except in how badly it reflects on us as a country that he is a senior person in public life.
I maintain that anyone who talks, acts and dresses like an absurd pastiche is psychologically damaged in some way.
I don't think he does, really. He clearly likes double breasted suits, and isn't a slave to fashion, but it's not a costume.
I mean, I like to wear hats which is out of the norm now, so his dress sense I don't think is an issue. I just don't know why the ill fitting suits when he must surely have an expensive tailor. Googling other people who have wondered the same thing there's some speculation his height and frame just make it hard.
For EPG (and others): I have seen no evidence because, as far as I know, no major news organization has bothered to research what made Epstein's victims vulnerable. I think at least one should, so we would know who most needs protection.
If you can find any evidence, for or against my conclusion, share it with us.
I think JRM’s most obnoxious statement was probably in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire.
“Discussing the recent Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, Rees-Mogg claimed the victims lacked “common sense” because they didn’t flee the burning building. He said to the presenter: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that didn’t happen.””
I listened to the whole interview, and I completely disagree that the statement was obnoxious. It is utterly tragic that the victims were advised to remain in their flats, when their common sense (in it's rawest form) would have been screaming at them to get out.
He very clearly said in that interview that of course someone with more intelligence like himself or the interviewer would have ignored the fire brigade. The implication was that the people in the tower were too stupid to act in their own interests.
Too stupid, no. Too beholden to authority, self-evidently yes.
Imagine being a relatives of one of the victims hearing what he said. He wasn’t casually opining on PB, he was giving a TV interview in the raw aftermath of a tragedy, and essentially telling people their loved ones died because they didn’t have the presence of mind to get out. It’s on a similar level to someone commenting that a murdered woman was taking a risk walking alone at night in revealing clothes.
I’m sure it wasn’t a deliberate slur, but I think it did betray a callousness that also features in his views on, for example, abortion in cases of rape or the raising of universal credit.
It is not that they did not have the presence of mind to get out, it is that they were told to stay in. They were let down badly by the authorities they trusted. Had they been more cynical, more rebellious, and less well-behaved, many more would have survived. That is an especially tragic part of the whole affair, and whether or not it was sensitive to say so, it was a sincere response to the tragedy. It is a recurring theme in our society that we worship our public services, even when they're shit - see also the NHS.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
You shouldn't wallow in anything - except maybe the bath at weekends.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
Reading that, I cannot decide if you are an entitled fool or a bloody idiot.
"... wallow in our privileges ..."
FFS
I am neither, and I have no idea why you're being so personal.
We should be grateful for our privileges and enjoy them. I find the idea that we can help uplift others by diminishing ourselves or being ashamed or embarrassed of who we are to be deeply stupid.
dixiedean - In World War II, the US executed something like 50 of our own men for rape, so those very practical men thought that executing rapists was a deterrent.
Braverman’s tweet, referring to the “alleged behaviour of some asylum seekers” is a typical dog-whistle.
You have to wonder what motivates her.
I absolutely detest her. She’s a stain on humanity . And the annoying smirks she pulls , utterly vile woman who gets off on the misery of others .
I haven’t noticed the smirk. I thought Patel was the smirker.
Braverman strikes me as a rather thick, excessively self-regarding, and the sort of person who loves to exercise petty authority over others.
In another world, she’s be a mid-level HR manager.
Funny how time changes one’s perspective. I rather respect Priti Patel now. She seems a lot more intelligent, somewhat more nuanced and independent thinking than many of her right wing bedfellows. Still don’t like her politics, but at least she seems to have a mind of her own.
Patel was also quite nasty, and a bully too. I grant you that she seemed to have a certain cunning and independence of thought.
She looks better compared to what followed her in Cruella. Goes to show how proximity to someone worse can make you come off better.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
You shouldn't wallow in anything - except maybe the bath at weekends.
If wallowing means, as I think it does, gaining visible satisfaction from a satisfying set of circumstances, I think we should all wallow a lot more.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
You shouldn't wallow in anything - except maybe the bath at weekends.
If wallowing means, as I think it does, gaining visible satisfaction from a satisfying set of circumstances, I think we should all wallow a lot more.
No doubt it can look smug at times, but frankly that might be better than people who seem to suffer from tremendous anxiety over being rich and privileged and might feel the need to present as miserable about it, especially if they are magnifying their own problems out of proportion. Self reflection is a good thing, and the well of in general probably need more of it, but you can have too much and suck the fun out of life.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
If you acquire 2 M&S suits, both the same and each with 2 trousers, and you rotate the jackets, then within that rotation rotate the trousers, you can be wearing what is actually a different suit every day for 4 days but people will think it's the same one.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*
Nowadays, when I find an item of clothing that fits and which I like, I tend to buy 4 to 6 of them. I should be ok for jeans (trousers, as kle4 says, wear out quicker than anything else) until my early 50s.
Anyway, I *have* changed my hairstyle. I wear it much thinner these days. But I still have the odd item of clothing in semi-regular circulation which are older than certain people I work with.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
Reading that, I cannot decide if you are an entitled fool or a bloody idiot.
"... wallow in our privileges ..."
FFS
I am neither, and I have no idea why you're being so personal.
We should be grateful for our privileges and enjoy them. I find the idea that we can help uplift others by diminishing ourselves or being ashamed or embarrassed of who we are to be deeply stupid.
Because of the sheer arrogance of statements like "wallow in privilege" as well as your technique of misreading what is written and then getting annoyed about it when this is pointed out.
However, I have good news. Since you obviously see nothing wrong with such things I shall not be disturbing you any further.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
If you acquire 2 M&S suits, both the same and each with 2 trousers, and you daily rotate the jackets, then within that rotation daily rotate the trousers, you can be wearing what is actually a different suit every day for 4 days but people will think it's the same one.
I reckon a pair of M&S suit trousers lasts about a year of 4-day-a-week in the office before it starts to wear through at the crotch (like I said, I have massive thighs). Whereas a jacket is almost invulnerable. I need at least ten pairs of trousers to every suit.
My suit is so unintersting that nobody notices it is the only one I own.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
You shouldn't wallow in anything - except maybe the bath at weekends.
If wallowing means, as I think it does, gaining visible satisfaction from a satisfying set of circumstances, I think we should all wallow a lot more.
Class privilege isn't a satisfying set of circumstances.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
If you acquire 2 M&S suits, both the same and each with 2 trousers, and you daily rotate the jackets, then within that rotation daily rotate the trousers, you can be wearing what is actually a different suit every day for 4 days but people will think it's the same one.
I reckon a pair of M&S suit trousers lasts about a year of 4-day-a-week in the office before it starts to wear through at the crotch (like I said, I have massive thighs). Whereas a jacket is almost invulnerable. I need at least ten pairs of trousers to every suit.
My suit is so unintersting that nobody notices it is the only one I own.
Supplying two pairs of trousers with each jacket is standard for off-the-rack suits at Ede & Ravenscroft, and perhaps at other similar places.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*.
Really? When I see clothes in the Mens Section they all look much the same as ever. Do they really change?
Nowadays, when I find an item of clothing that fits and which I like, I tend to buy 4 to 6 of them. I should be ok for jeans (trousers, as kle4 says, wear out quicker than anything else) until my early 50s.
Anyway, I *have* changed my hairstyle. I wear it much thinner these days. But I still have the odd item of clothing in semi-regular circulation which are older than certain people I work with.
Nearly any black knee-length skirt will go with almost any jacket and a simple pair of court shoes on a 2 inch heel usually works as well. Both easy to get.
I think JRM’s most obnoxious statement was probably in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire.
“Discussing the recent Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, Rees-Mogg claimed the victims lacked “common sense” because they didn’t flee the burning building. He said to the presenter: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that didn’t happen.””
I listened to the whole interview, and I completely disagree that the statement was obnoxious. It is utterly tragic that the victims were advised to remain in their flats, when their common sense (in it's rawest form) would have been screaming at them to get out.
He very clearly said in that interview that of course someone with more intelligence like himself or the interviewer would have ignored the fire brigade. The implication was that the people in the tower were too stupid to act in their own interests.
Too stupid, no. Too beholden to authority, self-evidently yes.
Imagine being a relatives of one of the victims hearing what he said. He wasn’t casually opining on PB, he was giving a TV interview in the raw aftermath of a tragedy, and essentially telling people their loved ones died because they didn’t have the presence of mind to get out. It’s on a similar level to someone commenting that a murdered woman was taking a risk walking alone at night in revealing clothes.
I’m sure it wasn’t a deliberate slur, but I think it did betray a callousness that also features in his views on, for example, abortion in cases of rape or the raising of universal credit.
It is not that they did not have the presence of mind to get out, it is that they were told to stay in. They were let down badly by the authorities they trusted. Had they been more cynical, more rebellious, and less well-behaved, many more would have survived. That is an especially tragic part of the whole affair, and whether or not it was sensitive to say so, it was a sincere response to the tragedy. It is a recurring theme in our society that we worship our public services, even when they're shit - see also the NHS.
Because it was a single stairwell building if everyone had tried to evacuate then the flow of people exciting the building would have impeded the fire service in fighting the fire.
That's why those buildings were designed to contain the fire within a single flat - it isn't possible to safely evacuate a tall building with a single stairwell. So the advice to people to stay in their flats and not evacuate was precisely correct, and people were exactly correct in following that advice.
The failure was that the design of the building had been compromised with the cladding which meant that a fire would not be contained within a single unit. It's not the case that if people had simply evacuated the building everything would have been fine, because that wasn't possible with a single stairwell given the number of floors and therefore people needing to evacuate.
In tall buildings you either need multiple evacuation stairwells, or you need to contain the fire so that you don't evacuate the building. Those are the choices. Having a single stairwell and attempting an evacuation is a recipe for tragedy.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*
Nowadays, when I find an item of clothing that fits and which I like, I tend to buy 4 to 6 of them. I should be ok for jeans (trousers, as kle4 says, wear out quicker than anything else) until my early 50s.
Anyway, I *have* changed my hairstyle. I wear it much thinner these days. But I still have the odd item of clothing in semi-regular circulation which are older than certain people I work with.
Since this has turned into political clothing dot com, I would finish with an anecdote of when I was preparing for Uni and attended a presentation designed to help 18 year olds learn about budgeting, and being flabbergasted at the average spend they suggested for clothing, if broken down to a weekly figure. I think I expected to spend about 1/10th of that in a year, I couldn't figure out what people could possibly be purchasing in such numbers to arrive at such an amount. If it weren't for the need for decent footwear and suits for work purposes costs would be negligible.
I know Dr Foxy has bemoaned the lack of fashion sense (or even simple decent presentation) of the average British male, and that is true, but I like to think I was just ahead of the game when it came to cost of living squeezing.
Although it is also easy to get cheap clothing if we really want what with all those child workers making some.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*.
Really? When I see clothes in the Mens Section they all look much the same as ever. Do they really change?
Not meaningfully, but sufficient to make things not fit/look quite right together.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
You shouldn't wallow in anything - except maybe the bath at weekends.
If wallowing means, as I think it does, gaining visible satisfaction from a satisfying set of circumstances, I think we should all wallow a lot more.
Class privilege isn't a satisfying set of circumstances.
I am not remotely posh, but as far as I am concerned, if you're Lord Nobington, enjoy your silver spoon. I see no cause for any such person to wander through life a tortured wraith. It seems spectacularly ungrateful to do so.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
A rather nasty piece of work who wallows in class privilege. That's how I see him.
That would make me like him more. We should all wallow in our privileges.
Reading that, I cannot decide if you are an entitled fool or a bloody idiot.
"... wallow in our privileges ..."
FFS
I am neither, and I have no idea why you're being so personal.
We should be grateful for our privileges and enjoy them. I find the idea that we can help uplift others by diminishing ourselves or being ashamed or embarrassed of who we are to be deeply stupid.
Because of the sheer arrogance of statements like "wallow in privilege" as well as your technique of misreading what is written and then getting annoyed about it when this is pointed out.
However, I have good news. Since you obviously see nothing wrong with such things I shall not be disturbing you any further.
I think JRM’s most obnoxious statement was probably in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire.
“Discussing the recent Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, Rees-Mogg claimed the victims lacked “common sense” because they didn’t flee the burning building. He said to the presenter: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that didn’t happen.””
I listened to the whole interview, and I completely disagree that the statement was obnoxious. It is utterly tragic that the victims were advised to remain in their flats, when their common sense (in it's rawest form) would have been screaming at them to get out.
He very clearly said in that interview that of course someone with more intelligence like himself or the interviewer would have ignored the fire brigade. The implication was that the people in the tower were too stupid to act in their own interests.
Too stupid, no. Too beholden to authority, self-evidently yes.
Imagine being a relatives of one of the victims hearing what he said. He wasn’t casually opining on PB, he was giving a TV interview in the raw aftermath of a tragedy, and essentially telling people their loved ones died because they didn’t have the presence of mind to get out. It’s on a similar level to someone commenting that a murdered woman was taking a risk walking alone at night in revealing clothes.
I’m sure it wasn’t a deliberate slur, but I think it did betray a callousness that also features in his views on, for example, abortion in cases of rape or the raising of universal credit.
It is not that they did not have the presence of mind to get out, it is that they were told to stay in. They were let down badly by the authorities they trusted. Had they been more cynical, more rebellious, and less well-behaved, many more would have survived. That is an especially tragic part of the whole affair, and whether or not it was sensitive to say so, it was a sincere response to the tragedy. It is a recurring theme in our society that we worship our public services, even when they're shit - see also the NHS.
Because it was a single stairwell building if everyone had tried to evacuate then the flow of people exciting the building would have impeded the fire service in fighting the fire.
That's why those buildings were designed to contain the fire within a single flat - it isn't possible to safely evacuate a tall building with a single stairwell. So the advice to people to stay in their flats and not evacuate was precisely correct, and people were exactly correct in following that advice.
The failure was that the design of the building had been compromised with the cladding which meant that a fire would not be contained within a single unit. It's not the case that if people had simply evacuated the building everything would have been fine, because that wasn't possible with a single stairwell given the number of floors and therefore people needing to evacuate.
In tall buildings you either need multiple evacuation stairwells, or you need to contain the fire so that you don't evacuate the building. Those are the choices. Having a single stairwell and attempting an evacuation is a recipe for tragedy.
That's a straw man. Nobody said everything would have been fine. They have said any more would have survived. That is self-evidently true. I can't, and won't, engage with an argument that black is white. Sorry.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
If you acquire 2 M&S suits, both the same and each with 2 trousers, and you daily rotate the jackets, then within that rotation daily rotate the trousers, you can be wearing what is actually a different suit every day for 4 days but people will think it's the same one.
I reckon a pair of M&S suit trousers lasts about a year of 4-day-a-week in the office before it starts to wear through at the crotch (like I said, I have massive thighs). Whereas a jacket is almost invulnerable. I need at least ten pairs of trousers to every suit.
My suit is so unintersting that nobody notices it is the only one I own.
Supplying two pairs of trousers with each jacket is standard for off-the-rack suits at Ede & Ravenscroft, and perhaps at other similar places.
Yes - and that’s where I got the idea of ordering 4 pairs of trousers for a made to measure suit.
A tailor told me, long ago, that letting wool rest after being worn is a thing. So if you wear the same wool trousers every day, they die rapidly.
I think JRM’s most obnoxious statement was probably in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire.
“Discussing the recent Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, Rees-Mogg claimed the victims lacked “common sense” because they didn’t flee the burning building. He said to the presenter: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that didn’t happen.””
I listened to the whole interview, and I completely disagree that the statement was obnoxious. It is utterly tragic that the victims were advised to remain in their flats, when their common sense (in it's rawest form) would have been screaming at them to get out.
He very clearly said in that interview that of course someone with more intelligence like himself or the interviewer would have ignored the fire brigade. The implication was that the people in the tower were too stupid to act in their own interests.
Too stupid, no. Too beholden to authority, self-evidently yes.
Imagine being a relatives of one of the victims hearing what he said. He wasn’t casually opining on PB, he was giving a TV interview in the raw aftermath of a tragedy, and essentially telling people their loved ones died because they didn’t have the presence of mind to get out. It’s on a similar level to someone commenting that a murdered woman was taking a risk walking alone at night in revealing clothes.
I’m sure it wasn’t a deliberate slur, but I think it did betray a callousness that also features in his views on, for example, abortion in cases of rape or the raising of universal credit.
It is not that they did not have the presence of mind to get out, it is that they were told to stay in. They were let down badly by the authorities they trusted. Had they been more cynical, more rebellious, and less well-behaved, many more would have survived. That is an especially tragic part of the whole affair, and whether or not it was sensitive to say so, it was a sincere response to the tragedy. It is a recurring theme in our society that we worship our public services, even when they're shit - see also the NHS.
Because it was a single stairwell building if everyone had tried to evacuate then the flow of people exciting the building would have impeded the fire service in fighting the fire.
That's why those buildings were designed to contain the fire within a single flat - it isn't possible to safely evacuate a tall building with a single stairwell. So the advice to people to stay in their flats and not evacuate was precisely correct, and people were exactly correct in following that advice.
The failure was that the design of the building had been compromised with the cladding which meant that a fire would not be contained within a single unit. It's not the case that if people had simply evacuated the building everything would have been fine, because that wasn't possible with a single stairwell given the number of floors and therefore people needing to evacuate.
In tall buildings you either need multiple evacuation stairwells, or you need to contain the fire so that you don't evacuate the building. Those are the choices. Having a single stairwell and attempting an evacuation is a recipe for tragedy.
That's a straw man. Nobody said everything would have been fine. They have said any more would have survived. That is self-evidently true. I can't, and won't, engage with an argument that black is white. Sorry.
It was the usually Swiss cheese thing. One day all the holes lined up. Cladding, compromised fire containment, single stairwell, high rise. Than a fire. Which spreads….
Once the containment failed, the fire service didn’t have a plan. It is quite clear, reading the enquiry notes, that when that happened, they were at a loss.
I think some people were, mentally, prisoners of the plan.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
If you acquire 2 M&S suits, both the same and each with 2 trousers, and you daily rotate the jackets, then within that rotation daily rotate the trousers, you can be wearing what is actually a different suit every day for 4 days but people will think it's the same one.
I reckon a pair of M&S suit trousers lasts about a year of 4-day-a-week in the office before it starts to wear through at the crotch (like I said, I have massive thighs). Whereas a jacket is almost invulnerable. I need at least ten pairs of trousers to every suit.
My suit is so unintersting that nobody notices it is the only one I own.
Supplying two pairs of trousers with each jacket is standard for off-the-rack suits at Ede & Ravenscroft, and perhaps at other similar places.
Yes - and that’s where I got the idea of ordering 4 pairs of trousers for a made to measure suit.
A tailor told me, long ago, that letting wool rest after being worn is a thing. So if you wear the same wool trousers every day, they die rapidly.
Also true of shoes (both leather ones and trainers).
Cookie - Here's a fact more people should know: Clothes don't have to wear out. I have an example: An Odlo cross country skiing outfit that I bought about 40 years ago. For at least 30 of those years I wore it skiing almost every weekend in the winter, which is rough treatment. And the only sign of wear is a faded label.
(Details: It is made mostly of a synthetic polyamide. There are other synthetics just as tough, as I understand it.
Sadly, I have had to give it up because it was made to go with knicker socks, as was standard back then, and I haven't been able to find them for years. But the replacement I found seems just as tough.
Recently, that helped me realize that one reason the US clothing industry might be emphasizing cotton more now is because it wears out faster than the tougher synthetics.)
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
If you acquire 2 M&S suits, both the same and each with 2 trousers, and you daily rotate the jackets, then within that rotation daily rotate the trousers, you can be wearing what is actually a different suit every day for 4 days but people will think it's the same one.
I reckon a pair of M&S suit trousers lasts about a year of 4-day-a-week in the office before it starts to wear through at the crotch (like I said, I have massive thighs). Whereas a jacket is almost invulnerable. I need at least ten pairs of trousers to every suit.
My suit is so unintersting that nobody notices it is the only one I own.
Supplying two pairs of trousers with each jacket is standard for off-the-rack suits at Ede & Ravenscroft, and perhaps at other similar places.
Yes - and that’s where I got the idea of ordering 4 pairs of trousers for a made to measure suit.
A tailor told me, long ago, that letting wool rest after being worn is a thing. So if you wear the same wool trousers every day, they die rapidly.
Also true of shoes (both leather ones and trainers).
When suited and booted was a thing I had five pairs of black shoes as well.
Which I still have. One pair died - the uppers finally wore out. The rest are going strong (fair number of heel replacements to be fair) - stored at the moment.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*
Nowadays, when I find an item of clothing that fits and which I like, I tend to buy 4 to 6 of them. I should be ok for jeans (trousers, as kle4 says, wear out quicker than anything else) until my early 50s.
Anyway, I *have* changed my hairstyle. I wear it much thinner these days. But I still have the odd item of clothing in semi-regular circulation which are older than certain people I work with.
Since this has turned into political clothing dot com, I would finish with an anecdote of when I was preparing for Uni and attended a presentation designed to help 18 year olds learn about budgeting, and being flabbergasted at the average spend they suggested for clothing, if broken down to a weekly figure. I think I expected to spend about 1/10th of that in a year, I couldn't figure out what people could possibly be purchasing in such numbers to arrive at such an amount. If it weren't for the need for decent footwear and suits for work purposes costs would be negligible.
I know Dr Foxy has bemoaned the lack of fashion sense (or even simple decent presentation) of the average British male, and that is true, but I like to think I was just ahead of the game when it came to cost of living squeezing.
Although it is also easy to get cheap clothing if we really want what with all those child workers making some.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*.
Really? When I see clothes in the Mens Section they all look much the same as ever. Do they really change?
Not meaningfully, but sufficient to make things not fit/look quite right together.
On the last point, you are right.
Where we came in was on M&S not stocking exactly the same trousers. Much the same would be fine if you weren't trying to get the same cloth as the jacket. But I have other beefs: jeans, primarily: I want EXACTLTY the same cut, fit and cloth as I wore last time. I don't want a slightly wider ankle, or a slightly darker blue, and I certainly don't want any element of stretchiness brought in. Jumpers: you can't get a decent thick or fleecey v-neck jumper nowadays without some sort of sticky-up collar thing. I had some lovely jumpers in the 90s and noughties, but you can't get them any more. Shoes: always changing, with the noble and heroic exception of Doc Martens, which have done tremendously well out of not changing in my lifetime. If only other brands could follow suit.
And on your first point, I reckon I spend almost nothing on clothes, but if you include coats and shoes it does add up, particularly if you start to include specialist shoes like walking boots. I reckon I spend about £300 - £400 a year on clothes.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*
Nowadays, when I find an item of clothing that fits and which I like, I tend to buy 4 to 6 of them. I should be ok for jeans (trousers, as kle4 says, wear out quicker than anything else) until my early 50s.
Anyway, I *have* changed my hairstyle. I wear it much thinner these days. But I still have the odd item of clothing in semi-regular circulation which are older than certain people I work with.
Since this has turned into political clothing dot com, I would finish with an anecdote of when I was preparing for Uni and attended a presentation designed to help 18 year olds learn about budgeting, and being flabbergasted at the average spend they suggested for clothing, if broken down to a weekly figure. I think I expected to spend about 1/10th of that in a year, I couldn't figure out what people could possibly be purchasing in such numbers to arrive at such an amount. If it weren't for the need for decent footwear and suits for work purposes costs would be negligible.
I know Dr Foxy has bemoaned the lack of fashion sense (or even simple decent presentation) of the average British male, and that is true, but I like to think I was just ahead of the game when it came to cost of living squeezing.
Although it is also easy to get cheap clothing if we really want what with all those child workers making some.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
You remind me of a sentence (meme??) that I read once that "One of the best things about being a man: wallet, hairstyle, shoes - last for years, possibly decades"
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*.
Really? When I see clothes in the Mens Section they all look much the same as ever. Do they really change?
Not meaningfully, but sufficient to make things not fit/look quite right together.
On the last point, you are right.
Where we came in was on M&S not stocking exactly the same trousers. Much the same would be fine if you weren't trying to get the same cloth as the jacket. But I have other beefs: jeans, primarily: I want EXACTLTY the same cut, fit and cloth as I wore last time. I don't want a slightly wider ankle, or a slightly darker blue, and I certainly don't want any element of stretchiness brought in. Jumpers: you can't get a decent thick or fleecey v-neck jumper nowadays without some sort of sticky-up collar thing. I had some lovely jumpers in the 90s and noughties, but you can't get them any more. Shoes: always changing, with the noble and heroic exception of Doc Martens, which have done tremendously well out of not changing in my lifetime. If only other brands could follow suit.
And on your first point, I reckon I spend almost nothing on clothes, but if you include coats and shoes it does add up, particularly if you start to include specialist shoes like walking boots. I reckon I spend about £300 - £400 a year on clothes.
I was in Hawai'i for a week, and ended up purchasing several Aloha shirts.
Sounds like just the thing for spicing up Casual Fridays in sunny Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, etc. etc., . . .
Cookie - Here's a fact more people should know: Clothes don't have to wear out. I have an example: An Odlo cross country skiing outfit that I bought about 40 years ago. For at least 30 of those years I wore it skiing almost every weekend in the winter, which is rough treatment. And the only sign of wear is a faded label.
(Details: It is made mostly of a synthetic polyamide. There are other synthetics just as tough, as I understand it.
Sadly, I have had to give it up because it was made to go with knicker socks, as was standard back then, and I haven't been able to find them for years. But the replacement I found seems just as tough.
Recently, that helped me realize that one reason the US clothing industry might be emphasizing cotton more now is because it wears out faster than the tougher synthetics.)
"Clothes don't have to wear out. "
Before yesterday's run, I noticed that the shorts (Craghoppers) that I run in are getting rather (ahem) threadbare in the lower crotch, from the action of the legs rubbing together. From experience it's pointless patching them, as the seams cause issues when running. So they'll soon be cut up for rags.
But I also wore my favourite fleece, a thin Patagonia fleece that is well over twenty years old, and was my main fleece on my coastal walk. Aside from new zips, it's still the best fleece I've ever had, and I can't find anything like it.
Mr. Jessop, last year I had to get rid of a great Craghoppers fleece. Old, but was nigh on perfect save it was getting worn out and the zip, replaced twice already, broke very rapidly after the recent replacement. Windproof, showerproof, tons of pocket space, ideal for everything but the worst weather.
Trying to find a replacement was faintly ridiculous as it seems pocket space is now a marginal concern. Shame, too, I would've spent a decent sum just to get the same thing but new, yet that wasn't an option I could find.
Still only back to 2019 levels, but better than feared.
This chart somewhat belies the claim that Brexit hurt capex doesn't it
I dunno about that. To my untrained eye, it looks like it was rising rapidly until 2016 and has been flat thereafter, apart from the Covid dip. But as RCS says, you'd have to compare with other similar countries.
I know I am sounding like a broken record on this. But still. We can add the TSSA union as another place with an appalling culture when it comes to women.
The number of reports would fill a sizeable library at this rate. I wonder if anyone ever reads them.
- Parliament - The army - The air force - The London fire brigade and other fire brigades - The police - The NHS - The Labour Party - The TSSA
And those are the ones we know about.
So we can divide organisations by their status regarding sexual harassment into
- Found out - Not found out. Yet
It is not hard to treat people, whoever they are, well. It is not hard for men to treat women well. It really isn't. "Do unto others...." for instance and a bit of basic empathy.
Men are not animals, obliged to follow their urges. They are human beings, able to make choices about how they act. And if they choose to act in the way that far too many men do, that is down to their individual responsibility. The culture helps create a sort of ethical blindness, a sort of boiling the frog syndrome. But ultimately each individual has responsibility for their own behaviour and a conscience and should be ashamed of behaving in the ways described in these endless reports.
I am sick of this. I am sick of hearing about more organisations treating their staff, especially their female staff, like shit. I am sick of reading the same things over and over again in reports. I am sick of hearing insincere apologies and the "lessons will be learned" cliche. I am sick of hearing that it is all very hard. It bloody well isn't hard to behave well, with consideration, politeness and empathy.
But. But (and I say this with trepidation because I’ll be treading into a range of types of dangerous territory here), what if “ Men are not animals, obliged to follow their urges. They are human beings, able to make choices about how they act” is not entirely true?
What if men are evolutionarily and genetically predisposed to violence, including violence against women. And therefore we can’t rely on appealing to some better nature to prevent violence in future?
There seem to be 3 explanations for the predominance of male violence, against their own sex and the opposite sex:
1. It’s in their genes. There were evolutionary fitness reasons for male humans to behave in a warlike manner, and to commit sexual violence, spurred on by a different hormonal chemistry 3. It’s cultural: we live in a patriarchy which celebrates or at least excuses violent male behaviour, so men feel cultural pressure to behave according to type (but why? is there an evolutionary reason?) 4. There is no cultural or genetic effect here, we are all able to exercise free choice; men just happen - coincidentally - to do more of this shit
3 seems unlikely. 2 is the most common explanation in the West. But why do we see the same patterns in just about every society, throughout history? Why is almost every human society patriarchal?
What if actually we need to accept males are a genetically more dangerous group in this particular species, and restrain their freedoms accordingly? Sure, there are gentle (“feeble”) men who defy the genes - I’m probably one of them. But are they like Ferdinand the bull who refused to fight and preferred to sniff flowers until a bee stung his behind? In other words freaks departing from an otherwise violent norm.
You will say this is a cop out as it denies personal responsibility. A fair point, but I still come back to that question: can there really be an explanation for male violence that doesn’t take into account genetics?
Contrary to the fantasies of incels, patriarchal societies are often governed by very strict codes of conduct that rule male behaviour towards women.
If we lived in an Islamic society, and did things like sending dick pics to women, flashing at them at work, making endless lewd comments, telling them how much we’d like to rape them, posting online fantasies about torture and rape, we would get into extremely hot water.
A young man almost certainly finds it easier to have consequence-free sex with young women in modern Western societies than at any point in history.
But there is something nasty in human nature that enjoys cruelty and degradation.
I think we’ve dropped one set of ethics that governed male behaviour towards women (the pre 1960’s) without putting another in their place. Added to which is a dreadful corporate and public sector culture that holds no one to account for their actions.
If you look at patriarchal Islamic societies like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt, rates of sexual assault are through the roof. It is basically impossible for a young woman to travel on Egyptian public transport and not be groped.
Indeed. The chivalric code of traditional societies hides a whole load of accepted but deeply abusive behaviour.
As for consequence free sex: just read Tess if the D’Urbervilles.
Without question. There were good reasons for dropping the older set of ethics. But, I’m not sure we’ve found anything to replace them.
Still only back to 2019 levels, but better than feared.
This chart somewhat belies the claim that Brexit hurt capex doesn't it
GDP tends to get revised upwards over time. I expect that a couple of years from now, we’ll learn that the economy expanded beyond its pre-Covid level last year.
Mr. Jessop, last year I had to get rid of a great Craghoppers fleece. Old, but was nigh on perfect save it was getting worn out and the zip, replaced twice already, broke very rapidly after the recent replacement. Windproof, showerproof, tons of pocket space, ideal for everything but the worst weather.
Trying to find a replacement was faintly ridiculous as it seems pocket space is now a marginal concern. Shame, too, I would've spent a decent sum just to get the same thing but new, yet that wasn't an option I could find.
Still only back to 2019 levels, but better than feared.
This chart somewhat belies the claim that Brexit hurt capex doesn't it
GDP tends to get revised upwards over time. I expect that a couple of years from now, we’ll learn that the economy expanded beyond its pre-Covid level last year.
Worrying for the Tories if that’s the case. They are tanking whilst the economy is growing.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
Your point is? The reigning ideas are the ideas imposed by the reigning class. The day nationalism no longer trumps class, the whole exploitative caboodle explodes - and the working class revolution abolishes class.
Happened once in eastern Ukraine. The Makhnovshchina weren't nationalist in the slightest.
Happened in places in Spain.
Have a look at Rojava too, in the present tense.
"Revolution is the only form of 'war' ... in which ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of defeats". (Rosa Luxemburg.)
What's sad is when nationalist nutters think they're being so alpha, often seeking out all-male environments in which they enjoy showing off to other men.
Alphas are a subcategory of betas and they're just as cucky.
Sigmas are where it's at
(And absolutely not those of the racist and sexist
Nick Krauser kind. They're worse than anyone. Krauser was a neo-Nazi the last I heard. A person who thinks they're "sigma" at the same time they are nationalist, racist, and pro-hierarchy is an idiot.)
My point is that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about class conflict.
The working class revolution won’t happen because the working class aren’t interested.
Everything the rulers do as a gang, as a collective, is about class. They know that. You can't have class without class conflict. It's not about the As versus the Bs, chosen one morning at random.
In Britain, the culture in many parts of society is also about class to an exceptional degree, even when in principle it doesn't have to be. Exclusionism is written right the way through British culture as if it were a stick of rock.
Most working class people haven't got a clue how anyone in the ruling class thinks, for the simple reason that they haven't met any. The richest person they ever meet on a one-to-one basis is probably a local GP or dentist (or used to meet, in the case of the former).
What mindless drivel, which could only be said by someone with no knowledge of British society. Britain is a country of class intermingling and has been noted as such back to the middle ages. There are pubs in every county where lawyers and plumbers drink together. This isn't like Putin the gollum, who embezzles billions from the Russian poor, and then enjoys it on his secluded estates.
It's not actually wrong. Lots of thick poshos in positions of power and cocking up because mummy was shagging the right man nine months before giving birth.
What it is, is backwards. It's not about working class not understanding the rulers. We understand them very well. They're useless scum floating on the top.
It's rather the ruling class have no idea how normal people think, because they never meet us.
Must give them a hell of a shock if they ever do meet people they rule.
Its nonsense. Lets start by defining terms. What income level by do you mean by "ruling class"? To be a whole class, it must be a reasonable number of people. So lets say its the income brackets of people that become MPs. As an MP, you earn 85k a year. A bit more for junior ministerial positions, so lets say 100k. I don't think most of them have pay cuts to join parliament.
Do you really think people on 100k never mix with those earning 30-40k, the typical salary? People earning 100k go to pubs, go to restaurants, go to village fetes.
I don't mean income. I mean those who make decisions. Some are actually on quite low salaries. But most of them seem to be there despite their ineptitude rather than because of their talent.
If you think that, for example, Jacob Rees-Mogg got into Parliament because of his intellect and high character, or Amanda Spielman has had any of her last three jobs on merit I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's time some of us reassessed JRM. I can't actually see what he did wrong except annoy civil servants (What's wrong with that?), and recline for dramatic effect in the HOC. He was widely mocked as 'Minister for Brexit opportunities', for not finding any, but it is now known that he created the retained EU law bill to make the most of just such opportunities. He seems fairly competent. I think some dislike him for being posh and rich, and others dislike him for posh and rich and having the nerve not to be a remainer.
He talks complete and utter nonsense every time he speaks. His nickname of "The Minister for the 17th Century" was not awarded by PB, but by those who know him.
I like the way he speaks. What's so great about 21st century oration?
Thing is we all knew someone like him at school. Young fogey. Pocket watch, waistcoat and affected accent. It’s a phase, and they usually grow out of if, but JRM appears not to have.
He’s deeply unappealing and decidedly pastiche but it’s hard to take him too seriously.
Whether it is an affectation or not (I find his penchant for often wearing suit jackets way too big for him to be odd, as it does not fit the caricature of the well put together upper class gentleman), it's a personal style which along with his archaic mannerisms can be lightly charming. If he had not been in a position of authority (albeit rather limited authority).
People wearing off-the peg suits tended to have correct leg measurements when standing and ankles and socks on display when sitting.
Not those of us with dumpy legs.
I had a made to measure suit once. It was awful. Far too short in the leg when sitting. Didn't repeat the experiment. I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
I hear you on that - it's always trousers that need replacing first as well. Last time I just ordered the new one with two trousers from the start.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
I had a suit made with 4 pairs of trousers.
I used to buy two pairs of trousers for a suit, but no more. A single pair is generally fine, as the style of a suit will go before the material does, though it does seem that I am in a tiny minority of PB males who does notice male style trends. Sure, the changes are subtle, but over time they are real.
Still only back to 2019 levels, but better than feared.
This chart somewhat belies the claim that Brexit hurt capex doesn't it
GDP tends to get revised upwards over time. I expect that a couple of years from now, we’ll learn that the economy expanded beyond its pre-Covid level last year.
Worrying for the Tories if that’s the case. They are tanking whilst the economy is growing.
I think JRM’s most obnoxious statement was probably in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire.
“Discussing the recent Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, Rees-Mogg claimed the victims lacked “common sense” because they didn’t flee the burning building. He said to the presenter: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that didn’t happen.””
I listened to the whole interview, and I completely disagree that the statement was obnoxious. It is utterly tragic that the victims were advised to remain in their flats, when their common sense (in it's rawest form) would have been screaming at them to get out.
He very clearly said in that interview that of course someone with more intelligence like himself or the interviewer would have ignored the fire brigade. The implication was that the people in the tower were too stupid to act in their own interests.
Too stupid, no. Too beholden to authority, self-evidently yes.
Imagine being a relatives of one of the victims hearing what he said. He wasn’t casually opining on PB, he was giving a TV interview in the raw aftermath of a tragedy, and essentially telling people their loved ones died because they didn’t have the presence of mind to get out. It’s on a similar level to someone commenting that a murdered woman was taking a risk walking alone at night in revealing clothes.
I’m sure it wasn’t a deliberate slur, but I think it did betray a callousness that also features in his views on, for example, abortion in cases of rape or the raising of universal credit.
It is not that they did not have the presence of mind to get out, it is that they were told to stay in. They were let down badly by the authorities they trusted. Had they been more cynical, more rebellious, and less well-behaved, many more would have survived. That is an especially tragic part of the whole affair, and whether or not it was sensitive to say so, it was a sincere response to the tragedy. It is a recurring theme in our society that we worship our public services, even when they're shit - see also the NHS.
Because it was a single stairwell building if everyone had tried to evacuate then the flow of people exciting the building would have impeded the fire service in fighting the fire.
That's why those buildings were designed to contain the fire within a single flat - it isn't possible to safely evacuate a tall building with a single stairwell. So the advice to people to stay in their flats and not evacuate was precisely correct, and people were exactly correct in following that advice.
The failure was that the design of the building had been compromised with the cladding which meant that a fire would not be contained within a single unit. It's not the case that if people had simply evacuated the building everything would have been fine, because that wasn't possible with a single stairwell given the number of floors and therefore people needing to evacuate.
In tall buildings you either need multiple evacuation stairwells, or you need to contain the fire so that you don't evacuate the building. Those are the choices. Having a single stairwell and attempting an evacuation is a recipe for tragedy.
That's a straw man. Nobody said everything would have been fine. They have said any more would have survived. That is self-evidently true. I can't, and won't, engage with an argument that black is white. Sorry.
The point is that, in a future fire, where the containment doesn't fail, it's likely that more people will die if they don't follow the fire service instruction to stay put. That's why JRMs comments were so reprehensible.
I think JRM’s most obnoxious statement was probably in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire.
“Discussing the recent Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, Rees-Mogg claimed the victims lacked “common sense” because they didn’t flee the burning building. He said to the presenter: “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that didn’t happen.””
I listened to the whole interview, and I completely disagree that the statement was obnoxious. It is utterly tragic that the victims were advised to remain in their flats, when their common sense (in it's rawest form) would have been screaming at them to get out.
He very clearly said in that interview that of course someone with more intelligence like himself or the interviewer would have ignored the fire brigade. The implication was that the people in the tower were too stupid to act in their own interests.
Too stupid, no. Too beholden to authority, self-evidently yes.
Imagine being a relatives of one of the victims hearing what he said. He wasn’t casually opining on PB, he was giving a TV interview in the raw aftermath of a tragedy, and essentially telling people their loved ones died because they didn’t have the presence of mind to get out. It’s on a similar level to someone commenting that a murdered woman was taking a risk walking alone at night in revealing clothes.
I’m sure it wasn’t a deliberate slur, but I think it did betray a callousness that also features in his views on, for example, abortion in cases of rape or the raising of universal credit.
It is not that they did not have the presence of mind to get out, it is that they were told to stay in. They were let down badly by the authorities they trusted. Had they been more cynical, more rebellious, and less well-behaved, many more would have survived. That is an especially tragic part of the whole affair, and whether or not it was sensitive to say so, it was a sincere response to the tragedy. It is a recurring theme in our society that we worship our public services, even when they're shit - see also the NHS.
Because it was a single stairwell building if everyone had tried to evacuate then the flow of people exciting the building would have impeded the fire service in fighting the fire.
That's why those buildings were designed to contain the fire within a single flat - it isn't possible to safely evacuate a tall building with a single stairwell. So the advice to people to stay in their flats and not evacuate was precisely correct, and people were exactly correct in following that advice.
The failure was that the design of the building had been compromised with the cladding which meant that a fire would not be contained within a single unit. It's not the case that if people had simply evacuated the building everything would have been fine, because that wasn't possible with a single stairwell given the number of floors and therefore people needing to evacuate.
In tall buildings you either need multiple evacuation stairwells, or you need to contain the fire so that you don't evacuate the building. Those are the choices. Having a single stairwell and attempting an evacuation is a recipe for tragedy.
That's a straw man. Nobody said everything would have been fine. They have said any more would have survived. That is self-evidently true. I can't, and won't, engage with an argument that black is white. Sorry.
It was the usually Swiss cheese thing. One day all the holes lined up. Cladding, compromised fire containment, single stairwell, high rise. Than a fire. Which spreads….
Once the containment failed, the fire service didn’t have a plan. It is quite clear, reading the enquiry notes, that when that happened, they were at a loss.
I think some people were, mentally, prisoners of the plan.
The thing is, once the containment failed, they were fucked. It was always going to be a disaster at that point.
Arguing it wouldn't have been so bad if people hadn't followed orders is deflection from that failing, and puts people at risk in future fires.
Comments
I grant you that she seemed to have a certain cunning and independence of thought.
"... wallow in our privileges ..."
FFS
Wasn't that the formulation?
I’m sure it wasn’t a deliberate slur, but I think it did betray a callousness that also features in his views on, for example, abortion in cases of rape or the raising of universal credit.
If you can find any evidence, for or against my conclusion, share it with us.
We should be grateful for our privileges and enjoy them. I find the idea that we can help uplift others by diminishing ourselves or being ashamed or embarrassed of who we are to be deeply stupid.
The French army had the same belief about the Goumiers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Goumier
Which I hope you will agree, were a more difficult problem.
I have massive thighs, which I think means my trousers rise up more. Consequently, when buying trousers,I buy them too long - since I will be spending more time sitting than standing.
While I'm on about this sort of thing, I recently attempted to replace my suit trousers, only to find M&S no longer stocks that particular trouser. What is the point of M&S if not consistency? Clothing retailers are childish neophiles. What I want - what, I thunk, most men want - from an item of clothing is a replacement for the one which has just worn out. I don't want a new style of thing; I don't want anything fashionable. I want to dress exactly as I did 20 years ago and to continue to do so for another 20 years.
There's probably a company out there which makes one style of suit, in one colour, and that's all they make.
I thank the (non-existent) Lord that I am a woman
If women want to spend their money on having more than three pairs of shoes and changing their clothes repeatedly, that's up to them. The problem though is that women - or people who think like women - appear to be in charge of stocking men's clothes shops. *sigh*
Nowadays, when I find an item of clothing that fits and which I like, I tend to buy 4 to 6 of them. I should be ok for jeans (trousers, as kle4 says, wear out quicker than anything else) until my early 50s.
Anyway, I *have* changed my hairstyle. I wear it much thinner these days.
But I still have the odd item of clothing in semi-regular circulation which are older than certain people I work with.
However, I have good news. Since you obviously see nothing wrong with such things I shall not be disturbing you any further.
My suit is so unintersting that nobody notices it is the only one I own.
Nearly any black knee-length skirt will go with almost any jacket and a simple pair of court shoes on a 2 inch heel usually works as well. Both easy to get.
That's why those buildings were designed to contain the fire within a single flat - it isn't possible to safely evacuate a tall building with a single stairwell. So the advice to people to stay in their flats and not evacuate was precisely correct, and people were exactly correct in following that advice.
The failure was that the design of the building had been compromised with the cladding which meant that a fire would not be contained within a single unit. It's not the case that if people had simply evacuated the building everything would have been fine, because that wasn't possible with a single stairwell given the number of floors and therefore people needing to evacuate.
In tall buildings you either need multiple evacuation stairwells, or you need to contain the fire so that you don't evacuate the building. Those are the choices. Having a single stairwell and attempting an evacuation is a recipe for tragedy.
I know Dr Foxy has bemoaned the lack of fashion sense (or even simple decent presentation) of the average British male, and that is true, but I like to think I was just ahead of the game when it came to cost of living squeezing.
Although it is also easy to get cheap clothing if we really want what with all those child workers making some. Not meaningfully, but sufficient to make things not fit/look quite right together.
Still only back to 2019 levels, but better than feared.
A tailor told me, long ago, that letting wool rest after being worn is a thing. So if you wear the same wool trousers every day, they die rapidly.
Once the containment failed, the fire service didn’t have a plan. It is quite clear, reading the enquiry notes, that when that happened, they were at a loss.
I think some people were, mentally, prisoners of the plan.
(Details: It is made mostly of a synthetic polyamide. There are other synthetics just as tough, as I understand it.
Sadly, I have had to give it up because it was made to go with knicker socks, as was standard back then, and I haven't been able to find them for years. But the replacement I found seems just as tough.
Recently, that helped me realize that one reason the US clothing industry might be emphasizing cotton more now is because it wears out faster than the tougher synthetics.)
Which I still have. One pair died - the uppers finally wore out. The rest are going strong (fair number of heel replacements to be fair) - stored at the moment.
Where we came in was on M&S not stocking exactly the same trousers. Much the same would be fine if you weren't trying to get the same cloth as the jacket. But I have other beefs: jeans, primarily: I want EXACTLTY the same cut, fit and cloth as I wore last time. I don't want a slightly wider ankle, or a slightly darker blue, and I certainly don't want any element of stretchiness brought in. Jumpers: you can't get a decent thick or fleecey v-neck jumper nowadays without some sort of sticky-up collar thing. I had some lovely jumpers in the 90s and noughties, but you can't get them any more. Shoes: always changing, with the noble and heroic exception of Doc Martens, which have done tremendously well out of not changing in my lifetime. If only other brands could follow suit.
And on your first point, I reckon I spend almost nothing on clothes, but if you include coats and shoes it does add up, particularly if you start to include specialist shoes like walking boots. I reckon I spend about £300 - £400 a year on clothes.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1624571528133193728
Sounds like just the thing for spicing up Casual Fridays in sunny Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, etc. etc., . . .
He is undoubtedly a master strategist:
Pregnant Russian women flying to Argentina for citizenship, officials say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-64610954
Before yesterday's run, I noticed that the shorts (Craghoppers) that I run in are getting rather (ahem) threadbare in the lower crotch, from the action of the legs rubbing together. From experience it's pointless patching them, as the seams cause issues when running. So they'll soon be cut up for rags.
But I also wore my favourite fleece, a thin Patagonia fleece that is well over twenty years old, and was my main fleece on my coastal walk. Aside from new zips, it's still the best fleece I've ever had, and I can't find anything like it.
Mr. Jessop, last year I had to get rid of a great Craghoppers fleece. Old, but was nigh on perfect save it was getting worn out and the zip, replaced twice already, broke very rapidly after the recent replacement. Windproof, showerproof, tons of pocket space, ideal for everything but the worst weather.
Trying to find a replacement was faintly ridiculous as it seems pocket space is now a marginal concern. Shame, too, I would've spent a decent sum just to get the same thing but new, yet that wasn't an option I could find.
Although the unusually large amount of browsing did mean I got a 70% discount on a light waterproof too, which was nice.
Arguing it wouldn't have been so bad if people hadn't followed orders is deflection from that failing, and puts people at risk in future fires.