Technically she endorsed whoever will be GOP nominee rather than Trump specifically 'In an article for the Wall Street Journal, she said: “For as long as most of us can recall, the US has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
A lot of people think Starmer is boring, so he ought to talk about this more than he does.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin. Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons."
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Hmm. I know what you mean, but I’m not sure I entirely agree
However you could be right. How else to explain the vivid survival of Cambodia - which lost 2m people out of 7-8m - and most of them from the educated middle classes?
It’s like trying to imagine Britain if we killed all the Remainers. Ian Dunt. A C Graylng. Jolyon Maugham. @northern_monkey. James o Brian. The entire editorial staff at the guardian. If they were all cudgelled to death with pick axe handles the nation would simply fall apart
And, of course, there are also those in jobs that ought to be occupied by brilliant minds, but who are quite clearly not brilliant minds, like James O'Brien, Owen Jones, or Jolyon Maugham, who presumably would also get swept away in a Khmer Rouge type purge.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Hmm. I know what you mean, but I’m not sure I entirely agree
However you could be right. How else to explain the vivid survival of Cambodia - which lost 2m people out of 7-8m - and most of them from the educated middle classes?
It’s like trying to imagine Britain if we killed all the Remainers. Ian Dunt. A C Graylng. Jolyon Maugham. @northern_monkey. James o Brian. The entire editorial staff at the guardian. If they were all cudgelled to death with pick axe handles the nation would simply fall apart
Cummings is a Thatcherite intellectual as is Gove, so much of Vote Leave would be culled too in a Cambodian style Khmer Rouge Society. Indeed only Corbynites would be safe
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Hmm. I know what you mean, but I’m not sure I entirely agree
However you could be right. How else to explain the vivid survival of Cambodia - which lost 2m people out of 7-8m - and most of them from the educated middle classes?
It’s like trying to imagine Britain if we killed all the Remainers. Ian Dunt. A C Graylng. Jolyon Maugham. @northern_monkey. James o Brian. The entire editorial staff at the guardian. If they were all cudgelled to death with pick axe handles the nation would simply fall apart
And, of course, there are also those in jobs that ought to be occupied by brilliant minds, but who are quite clearly not brilliant minds, like James O'Brien, Owen Jones, or Jolyon Maugham, who presumably would also get swept away in a Khmer Rouge type purge.
Technically she endorsed whoever will be GOP nominee rather than Trump specifically 'In an article for the Wall Street Journal, she said: “For as long as most of us can recall, the US has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
A lot of people think Starmer is boring, so he ought to talk about this more than he does.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin. Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons."
Whether he does or doesn't looking at the pictures of him on the anti-semitism march he is looking in pretty good form. Much fitter than he has in a long time, why is that a cheekbone I can almost see framing that loveable grin.
isn’t he on Ozempic? I believe he wrote a column about it
Does that have a zillion side effects or does it work.
It works. It certainly worked for me - with minor side effects, a touch of nausea, for a day or two - but the trouble it certainly stops working when you stop taking it. So I lost a fair few pounds, then the world ran out of Ozempic, and the pounds went back on
I am now returning to it, but I am forced to take a lower dose of Wegovy (a similar drug)
The real revolution will come with Mounjaro, not only is it more effective (apparently) it is made by a different company so we will at last see price competition and greater mass production. In a year or two these drugs will be ubiquitous and much much cheaper
It will be like what happened to Viagra, but greatly accelerated
ah thanks (and @Phil). So like any weightloss method. Works when you're doing it, doesn't when you're not. gotit.
Well, yes, but requiring a lot less effort and dedication. No hours at the gym, no calorie counting and tedious jogging, no desperate resisting of delicious puds in nice restaurants. Your appetite just falls away, and you don’t actually want a pud
For me one of the main benefits was a reduction in desire for booze. I still enjoyed a drink, but my lust for an excess of it notably diminished
And speaking of which, putting calories on the menus at restaurants has all but killed the thrill of going out to eat stone dead.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
That is a fantastic amount of weight to lose. As for calories on menus it is my understanding that it is obligatory for larger restaurants.
Quite useful really, as I'd always opt for the highest calorie offering available. It's patently mad to pay someone to nourish you less. Mediaeval people would be baffled. Putting a hole in a pizza - mad.
UKHSA has detected a single confirmed human case of influenza A(H1N2)v, which is the first detection of this strain of flu in a human in the UK. We are monitoring the situation closely.
Birdflu klaxon !
They said it was to do with pigs not birds on the one o'clock news.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
It does raise questions about the assumed hereditary component of IQ. Clearly that exists but the random/nurturing aspects may be more important still. The random element also does a lot to explain the differences in the IQs of siblings too which always seems to be given modest attention in these studies.
I agree. I started a post on that but gave up when something else more important came up. Inheritance isn't linear. It is a mish mash. My son has an off the scale IQ (Doing a PH.D at Cambridge, University Challenge, final selection for the GB team in 3 subjects for the International Olympiad, won the Cambridge computer science prize for a paper on Game Theory while in the lower 6th, etc, etc.). My daughter is of average intelligence. I don't know my IQ, but I did have to take a test for a job over 40 years ago and I know I had to score over 130 for an interview. My sister however is of average intelligence and my father was not bright at all, although 2 of his 3 siblings were. My wife is bright (a highly qualified Doctor), but he sister doesn't have any scientific knowledge whatsoever.
It isn't straight forward and then of course there are all those bright kids who never get a chance at a proper education, a book or glasses who go unnoticed particularly in a less advanced society.
It is complicated so I assume bright people (particularly kids) were missed in the cull and bright children were off springs from less bright parents who had intelligence genes lurking.
Yeah, but you're daft enough to agree with me most of the time so, you know...
A lot of people think Starmer is boring, so he ought to talk about this more than he does.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin. Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons."
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
A lot of people think Starmer is boring, so he ought to talk about this more than he does.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin. Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons."
Technically she endorsed whoever will be GOP nominee rather than Trump specifically 'In an article for the Wall Street Journal, she said: “For as long as most of us can recall, the US has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
No one is going to vote for the Republican candidate (whoever that may be, wink wink) now!
Herein lies one of the big risks for the Tories of an autumn 2024 election. Trump will be in full flow and making all sorts of ludicrous or offensive statements. Each time he does the conservatives will be asked whether they agree.
Labour will be asked too, but nobody expects them to have a problem distancing from Trump. Whereas there will be some on the Tory benches (Lee Anderson for example) who will almost certainly make approving noises.
Does Sunak publicly contradict the Lees and criticise Trump, or go all in? If he does distance himself, do Refuk then have an opportunity to raise their profile by outflanking them and getting Trump’s endorsement?
Trump has the potential to really derail an autumn election campaign.
Would William Hague re-enter parliament as MP for Richmond if Sunak stands down after the next election? Maybe worth a bet, if it was available.
I highly doubt it, he is 62 and has already been Leader of the Opposition, Foreign Secretary and would have to give up his seat in the Lords, his time in his 10 bedroom, £2.5 million Welsh country pile with Ffion and the money he makes on the lecture circuit
So much about this story (including the extent of the coverage of it) seems bonkers to me.
Its because of the ever changing lie. If he had just fessed up from the start, said oh shit I have made a massive mistake here and paid the money, it wouldn't have even been a story. Instead we have had numerous different versions, with the latest it was the kids, I know nought about football or streaming, other that time I watched 6 games in a weekend.
We have seen similar things with other MPs where the lie catches up with them eventually.
Would William Hague re-enter parliament as MP for Richmond if Sunak stands down after the next election? Maybe worth a bet, if it was available.
I highly doubt it, he has already been Leader of the Opposition, Foreign Secretary and would have to give up his seat in the Lords, his time in his 10 bedroom, £2.5 million country pile with Ffion and the money he makes on the lecture circuit
The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park needs £150,000 to fix a leaking asbestos roof (or maybe replace it).
You'd have thought the government would take care of museums of national importance. We don't have the same web of tech philanthropists as the United States.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
I don't want to put words into @Sean_F mouth, but there is a lot of luck in life and if you cleared out the current top tier of intellectuals (if such a thing exists) there would be others to take their place with little if any loss. Obviously there is a limit to that and once you have a huge cull like in Cambodia the impact is dramatic.
But if you look at many scientific discoveries there was a lot of parallel stuff going on. Darwin of course is a good example. If you removed Beethoven and Van Gogh others would take their place.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
For sure, there must have been millions of such people across history.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
Hence, "those that once owned the land now work it."
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
For sure, there must have been millions of such people across history.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
The younger sons of younger sons often got a large Georgian rectory and maid and cook as they became country Vicars.
There was a tiny bit of upward social mobility even in the 16th century eg Cardinal Wolsey's father was a butcher from Ipswich and he became the King's Lord Chancellor
Would William Hague re-enter parliament as MP for Richmond if Sunak stands down after the next election? Maybe worth a bet, if it was available.
I highly doubt it, he has already been Leader of the Opposition, Foreign Secretary and would have to give up his seat in the Lords, his time in his 10 bedroom, £2.5 million country pile with Ffion and the money he makes on the lecture circuit
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
For sure, there must have been millions of such people across history.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
Someone raised the point earlier about the Normans being small in number. And I was going to reply, yes, but those at the top of society have the most children, so its eminently possible that we are genetically as much Norman as anyone else, and that while the Anglo-Saxons won the cultural war, perhaps the Normans won the genetic one, but because of the normality of downward social mobility, we don't realise. And then I realised I din't really know what I was talking about, so held back. But still - maybe.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
I don't want to put words into @Sean_F mouth, but there is a lot of luck in life and if you cleared out the current top tier of intellectuals (if such a thing exists) there would be others to take their place with little if any loss. Obviously there is a limit to that and once you have a huge cull like in Cambodia the impact is dramatic.
But if you look at many scientific discoveries there was a lot of parallel stuff going on. Darwin of course is a good example. If you removed Beethoven and Van Gogh others would take their place.
There would be a few but the highest IQ are disproportionally represented amongst intellectuals so you would be left with the vast majority of society of only average IQ or below
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
What I find tedious is your determination to only see the evidence of Ukraine's struggles, and to ignore the evidence of their victories.
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
A Russian tank factory just ‘went on fire’ - in the city of Chelyabinsk, 1,000 miles from Ukraine.
Meanwhile, estimates of Russian troop losses are running close to 1,000 men per day. There’s a hard limit to how long they can sustain such losses of men and equipment.
A lot of people think Starmer is boring, so he ought to talk about this more than he does.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin. Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons."
Sounds like Starmer could be our most musical PM since Ted Heath (if you ignore Blair's being a lead singer in a pop band briefly)
There's quite an interesting segment of a documentary on the Tory Party (I think by Alan Clark) where a musician discusses what an awful conductor Ted Heath was.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
What I find tedious is your determination to only see the evidence of Ukraine's struggles, and to ignore the evidence of their victories.
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
A Russian tank factory just ‘went on fire’ - in the city of Chelyabinsk, 1,000 miles from Ukraine.
Meanwhile, estimates of Russian troop losses are running close to 1,000 men per day. There’s a hard limit to how long they can sustain such losses of men and equipment.
"A mystery explosion rocked a Russian tank factory which produces engines and artillery for the war in Ukraine."
Well that's unfortunate, they really should be more careful. Health and safety at work at all times.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
For sure, there must have been millions of such people across history.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
The younger sons of younger sons often got a large Georgian rectory and maid and cook as they became country Vicars
Well yes, but their grandsons were another two steps down the social scale.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
For sure, there must have been millions of such people across history.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
Someone raised the point earlier about the Normans being small in number. And I was going to reply, yes, but those at the top of society have the most children, so its eminently possible that we are genetically as much Norman as anyone else, and that while the Anglo-Saxons won the cultural war, perhaps the Normans won the genetic one, but because of the normality of downward social mobility, we don't realise. And then I realised I din't really know what I was talking about, so held back. But still - maybe.
Pretty well any white English person has William the Conqueror among their ancestors. And, most would have people like Edward I, and Mohammed, because of this high survival rate creating a surplus of upper class people.
Culturally, I'd say it's a wash between Normans and Anglo-Saxons.
A lot of people think Starmer is boring, so he ought to talk about this more than he does.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin. Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons."
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
For sure, there must have been millions of such people across history.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
Someone raised the point earlier about the Normans being small in number. And I was going to reply, yes, but those at the top of society have the most children, so its eminently possible that we are genetically as much Norman as anyone else, and that while the Anglo-Saxons won the cultural war, perhaps the Normans won the genetic one, but because of the normality of downward social mobility, we don't realise. And then I realised I din't really know what I was talking about, so held back. But still - maybe.
Pretty well any white English person has William the Conqueror among their ancestors. And, most would have people like Edward I, and Mohammed, because of this high survival rate creating a surplus of upper class people.
Culturally, I'd say it's a wash between Normans and Anglo-Saxons.
Indeed, and because posh family trees are better documented, it's rather easier to find your way back to Norman aristocrats than anyone else at that time. But I wonder what proportion of our genetic stock is Norman and what proportion Anglo Saxon. I'll do a spreadsheet...
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
What I find tedious is your determination to only see the evidence of Ukraine's struggles, and to ignore the evidence of their victories.
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
A Russian tank factory just ‘went on fire’ - in the city of Chelyabinsk, 1,000 miles from Ukraine.
Meanwhile, estimates of Russian troop losses are running close to 1,000 men per day. There’s a hard limit to how long they can sustain such losses of men and equipment.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
For sure, there must have been millions of such people across history.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
The younger sons of younger sons often got a large Georgian rectory and maid and cook as they became country Vicars.
There was a tiny bit of upward social mobility even in the 16th century eg Cardinal Wolsey's father was a butcher from Ipswich and he became the King's Lord Chancellor
Upward social mobility was certainly a thing, across the board, for several generations after the Black Death, as living standards rose sharply.
Geoffrey Chaucer's family is an outstanding example.
His grandfather owned a tavern; his father imported wine; he was a civil servant and MP; his son was Speaker of the Commons; his grand-daughter was Duchess of Suffolk; his great-grandson was Earl of Lincoln, and for a rime, heir to the throne.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
Some might argue that they also bear an element of responsibility...too slow to raise interest rates to tackle inflation caused in large part by excess money printing.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
The failure of both the BoE and the ONS, to come close to estimating the size of the economy in recent years, is a problem that cascades into many other areas of policymaking and government decisions.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
Some might argue that they also bear an element of responsibility...too slow to raise interest rates to tackle inflation caused in large part by excess money printing.
Is that an argument? It looks more like a statement of fact to me.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
The failure of both the BoE and the ONS, to come close to estimating the size of the economy in recent years, is a problem that cascades into many other areas of policymaking and government decisions.
This was raiaed 10 years ago when there was discussion of what to do about the census. How in a world where people are much more mobile do you establish reliable estimates. It also feeds in COVID, the modelling and numbers for that....there is a serious underlying issue here in regards data, data collection, data analytics.
Technically she endorsed whoever will be GOP nominee rather than Trump specifically 'In an article for the Wall Street Journal, she said: “For as long as most of us can recall, the US has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
Trump does not call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat, except in obvious cases like North Korea. He negotiates with them to extract the most value for the US, regardless of ethics. Reagan fought against evil for the world on a principled basis. Trump negotiates with counterparties for the USA on a transactional basis. Different people
The British Conservative Party's cargo-cult belief that they are the same as the US Republican Party really should stop.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
Some might argue that they also bear an element of responsibility...too slow to raise interest rates to tackle inflation caused in large part by excess money printing.
Is that an argument? It looks more like a statement of fact to me.
You might think that, but i couldn't possibly comment.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
Some might argue that they also bear an element of responsibility...too slow to raise interest rates to tackle inflation caused in large part by excess money printing.
Mostly inflation came from Covid and Ukraine and had nothing to do with money supply. The reason for raising interest rates is to defend the exchange rate.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
Some might argue that they also bear an element of responsibility...too slow to raise interest rates to tackle inflation caused in large part by excess money printing.
Uniquely among forecasters the Bank has the power to make their predictions come true - especially in the case of a recession.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
The failure of both the BoE and the ONS, to come close to estimating the size of the economy in recent years, is a problem that cascades into many other areas of policymaking and government decisions.
Not just recent years. Famously Britain never needed the IMF loan that caused all that fuss in 1976 once the beancounters had double-checked their figures.
"Britain’s growth outlook is ‘worst I’ve ever seen’, says Andrew Bailey Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
It was the Bank (amongst others) that forecast that we would have a deep recession this year but we have grown 0.6%. Not exactly exciting growth but a pretty shocking margin of error by the Bank's economists. I think that they are being overly pessimistic about next year too.
Some might argue that they also bear an element of responsibility...too slow to raise interest rates to tackle inflation caused in large part by excess money printing.
Mostly inflation came from Covid and Ukraine and had nothing to do with money supply. The reason for raising interest rates is to defend the exchange rate.
We printed huge amounts of money during COVID, for COVID.
Is raising interest rates was simply to defend the exchange rate, the US who were on the flip side of currency issues i.e while Euro, pound etc was very weak, they wouldn't have needed to raise rates and they did so faster than us.
Technically she endorsed whoever will be GOP nominee rather than Trump specifically 'In an article for the Wall Street Journal, she said: “For as long as most of us can recall, the US has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
Trump does not call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat, except in obvious cases like North Korea. He negotiates with them to extract the most value for the US, regardless of ethics. Reagan fought against evil for the world on a principled basis. Trump negotiates with counterparties for the USA on a transactional basis. Different people
The British Conservative Party's cargo-cult belief that they are the same as the US Republican Party really should stop.
The Sunak Tories could connect with Haley or Romney's Republican Party, even the right with DeSantis.
However the Trumpite wing of the GOP has more in common with Farage and ReformUK yes
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. We have an excess of brilliant minds, in order to cope with the situations where brilliant minds are slaughtered.
It is, of course, the subject of a famous poem
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd; Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide, To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame, Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray; Along the cool sequester'd vale of life They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
For sure, there must have been millions of such people across history.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
The younger sons of younger sons often got a large Georgian rectory and maid and cook as they became country Vicars.
There was a tiny bit of upward social mobility even in the 16th century eg Cardinal Wolsey's father was a butcher from Ipswich and he became the King's Lord Chancellor
Upward social mobility was certainly a thing, across the board, for several generations after the Black Death, as living standards rose sharply.
Geoffrey Chaucer's family is an outstanding example.
His grandfather owned a tavern; his father imported wine; he was a civil servant and MP; his son was Speaker of the Commons; his grand-daughter was Duchess of Suffolk; his great-grandson was Earl of Lincoln, and for a rime, heir to the throne.
Note also Chaucer's sister in law, Katherine Swynford, mistress of John of Gaunt, thereby (by battle and later legitimation) direct ancestor of Henry VII (whose wafer thin claim rested entirely upon this) thereafter and by easy steps direct ancestor of the late QEII, Charles III and so on.
The Pastons (of Paston letters fame) are another though less regal example.
FWIW I think the Black Death was a real hiatus and new start in the narrative of English history, whereby there is a sort of consistency and continuity of how we got from there to here; its symbol for me is Chaucer's Prologue to the Tales, which is, I think, the first poetry in English whose contents make immediate psychological sense to0 the modern reader.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
I don't want to put words into @Sean_F mouth, but there is a lot of luck in life and if you cleared out the current top tier of intellectuals (if such a thing exists) there would be others to take their place with little if any loss. Obviously there is a limit to that and once you have a huge cull like in Cambodia the impact is dramatic.
But if you look at many scientific discoveries there was a lot of parallel stuff going on. Darwin of course is a good example. If you removed Beethoven and Van Gogh others would take their place.
There would be a few but the highest IQ are disproportionally represented amongst intellectuals so you would be left with the vast majority of society of only average IQ or below
I think we might be talking at cross purposes. I agree with what you are saying there, but that really wasn't the point I was making in agreeing with @Sean_F.
Obviously if you took away everyone with an IQ over 100 it would have a dramatic impact (although we have discussed how that would be impossible and also bright people would be born to less bright people because of lurking genes in due course).
The point being made is that society contains a lot of highly intelligent people with IQs equivalent than the so-called 'intellectuals'. @Sean_F was making the point that there are many more people able to fill those slots (obviously not if you cull them all) than there are slots and a lot of it is the luck of the draw in life. We all know of Darwin. Few of Wallace and the many others looking into the same stuff Darwin was looking at. Same sort of thing with Calculus, same with flight, etc.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
What I find tedious is your determination to only see the evidence of Ukraine's struggles, and to ignore the evidence of their victories.
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
A Russian tank factory just ‘went on fire’ - in the city of Chelyabinsk, 1,000 miles from Ukraine.
Meanwhile, estimates of Russian troop losses are running close to 1,000 men per day. There’s a hard limit to how long they can sustain such losses of men and equipment.
Russian mortars have now larely been pushed out of range of Kherson. The skies over the west bank of the Dnipro are alive with Ukrainian kamikaze drones, with a lot of artillery being trashed well back from the front. There is a real possibility that the western portion will have to be ceded by Russia, as supplying it is going to be damned near impossible.
It will look to be a significant portion of acreage - and give a real boost to Ukraine.
Can 1 put an N=1 into the Cambodia discussion, please. My younger son is married to a Thai lady. Her father is, originally, Cambodian. He fled across the border some 50 years ago and ended up in a Thai border village, marrying a Thai girl and eventually owning a small rice farm. One of his sons went to agricultural college and, last time I heard runs a 'development farm', where he is paid to grow experimental crops and, if they succeed, encourage his neighbours to diversify. Most of his children have done 'well' by the standards of the Thai village, and the same applies to his grandchildren. Obviously, in the case of our mutual grandchildren the genes contributed by the 'Coles' have had some effect, but as I say, all the grandchildren, that I know about at least, have moved up the 'intellectual scale'.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Yes but intellectuals are needed to drive the arts and culture forward and to do key innovative scientific research, without them society becomes sterile even if it can still have doctors, nurses, lawyers, formulaic teachers, the police and businesses and banks that keep the basics going
I don't want to put words into @Sean_F mouth, but there is a lot of luck in life and if you cleared out the current top tier of intellectuals (if such a thing exists) there would be others to take their place with little if any loss. Obviously there is a limit to that and once you have a huge cull like in Cambodia the impact is dramatic.
But if you look at many scientific discoveries there was a lot of parallel stuff going on. Darwin of course is a good example. If you removed Beethoven and Van Gogh others would take their place.
There would be a few but the highest IQ are disproportionally represented amongst intellectuals so you would be left with the vast majority of society of only average IQ or below
I think we might be talking at cross purposes. I agree with what you are saying there, but that really wasn't the point I was making in agreeing with @Sean_F.
Obviously if you took away everyone with an IQ over 100 it would have a dramatic impact (although we have discussed how that would be impossible and also bright people would be born to less bright people because of lurking genes in due course).
The point being made is that society contains a lot of highly intelligent people with IQs equivalent than the so-called 'intellectuals'. @Sean_F was making the point that there are many more people able to fill those slots (obviously not if you cull them all) than there are slots and a lot of it is the luck of the draw in life. We all know of Darwin. Few of Wallace and the many others looking into the same stuff Darwin was looking at. Same sort of thing with Calculus, same with flight, etc.
Thanks, and yes.
My point is that intellectual and creative abilities are rare. But, they are much less rare than the number of positions that are available to people who possess such gifts.
So, if, say, 200 people can make a decent living by writing novels, and there 2,000 people capable of writing novels to a professional standard, if all those 200 died, another 200 would take their place.
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Dangerous woke nonsense? Harmless and thoughtful?
Some men have periods and many men (if not all men) likely know people who have periods.
Technically she endorsed whoever will be GOP nominee rather than Trump specifically 'In an article for the Wall Street Journal, she said: “For as long as most of us can recall, the US has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
Trump does not call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat, except in obvious cases like North Korea. He negotiates with them to extract the most value for the US, regardless of ethics. Reagan fought against evil for the world on a principled basis. Trump negotiates with counterparties for the USA on a transactional basis. Different people
The British Conservative Party's cargo-cult belief that they are the same as the US Republican Party really should stop.
They are irresistibly attracted to the far greater amounts of money available in US politics, think tanks, foundations etc. It's unlikely to change.
Can 1 put an N=1 into the Cambodia discussion, please. My younger son is married to a Thai lady. Her father is, originally, Cambodian. He fled across the border some 50 years ago and ended up in a Thai border village, marrying a Thai girl and eventually owning a small rice farm. One of his sons went to agricultural college and, last time I heard runs a 'development farm', where he is paid to grow experimental crops and, if they succeed, encourage his neighbours to diversify. Most of his children have done 'well' by the standards of the Thai village, and the same applies to his grandchildren. Obviously, in the case of our mutual grandchildren the genes contributed by the 'Coles' have had some effect, but as I say, all the grandchildren, that I know about at least, have moved up the 'intellectual scale'.
Obviously there's a heritable component as far as intelligence is concerned - but the idea that a one off cull of the most intelligent would have a massive effect is, I think, fallacious. You'd probably need many generations of such 'selection' to make a large difference.
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Dangerous woke nonsense? Harmless and thoughtful?
Some men have periods and many men (if not all men) likely know people who have periods.
I don't see the issue.
Apparently 10% of men over 65 have incontinence of the number 1 variety so even if there were a ban on trans men in gents loos (which nobody is suggesting, the controversy such as it is revolves around trans women in the ladies) it makes sense on its own terms. Whether or not you make them free depends on how generous you’re feeling.
Comments
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin. Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#Early_life_and_education
https://order-order.com/2023/11/27/health-minister-claimed-not-to-know-about-11000-ipad-football-game-despite-being-massive-football-fan/
Elegy in a Country Churchyard: Thomas Gray
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid
Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire;
Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd,
Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page
Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll;
Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage,
And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene,
The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood;
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Th' applause of list'ning senates to command,
The threats of pain and ruin to despise,
To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land,
And read their hist'ry in a nation's eyes,
Their lot forbade: nor circumscrib'd alone
Their growing virtues, but their crimes confin'd;
Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne,
And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide,
To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame,
Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride
With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife,
Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray;
Along the cool sequester'd vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
Labour will be asked too, but nobody expects them to have a problem distancing from Trump. Whereas there will be some on the Tory benches (Lee Anderson for example) who will almost certainly make approving noises.
Does Sunak publicly contradict the Lees and criticise Trump, or go all in? If he does distance himself, do Refuk then have an opportunity to raise their profile by outflanking them and getting Trump’s endorsement?
Trump has the potential to really derail an autumn election campaign.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2911769/William-Hague-buys-2-5million-10-bedroom-country-pile-mid-Wales.html
We have seen similar things with other MPs where the lie catches up with them eventually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTcPbxZHBNc
The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park needs £150,000 to fix a leaking asbestos roof (or maybe replace it).
You'd have thought the government would take care of museums of national importance. We don't have the same web of tech philanthropists as the United States.
But if you look at many scientific discoveries there was a lot of parallel stuff going on. Darwin of course is a good example. If you removed Beethoven and Van Gogh others would take their place.
We are so used to upward social mobility, that we miss that, for most of history, downward social mobility would have been the norm.
The upper classes would have the best survival rate in any society, but at the same time, people would constantly be pushed out of the ranks of the upper classes. People would lose their status as estates were subdivided, or if primogeniture applied, the younger sons of younger sons would get next to nothing.
Hence, "those that once owned the land now work it."
There was a tiny bit of upward social mobility even in the 16th century eg Cardinal Wolsey's father was a butcher from Ipswich and he became the King's Lord Chancellor
And then I realised I din't really know what I was talking about, so held back.
But still - maybe.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/27/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-drone-attack-kyiv-live/
Meanwhile, estimates of Russian troop losses are running close to 1,000 men per day. There’s a hard limit to how long they can sustain such losses of men and equipment.
Well that's unfortunate, they really should be more careful. Health and safety at work at all times.
Bank of England’s forecasts indicate economy will barely grow over next two years"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/27/britain-growth-outlook-worst-ever-andrew-bailey-bank/
Culturally, I'd say it's a wash between Normans and Anglo-Saxons.
Geoffrey Chaucer's family is an outstanding example.
His grandfather owned a tavern; his father imported wine; he was a civil servant and MP; his son was Speaker of the Commons; his grand-daughter was Duchess of Suffolk; his great-grandson was Earl of Lincoln, and for a rime, heir to the throne.
The British Conservative Party's cargo-cult belief that they are the same as the US Republican Party really should stop.
Is raising interest rates was simply to defend the exchange rate, the US who were on the flip side of currency issues i.e while Euro, pound etc was very weak, they wouldn't have needed to raise rates and they did so faster than us.
NEW THREAD
However the Trumpite wing of the GOP has more in common with Farage and ReformUK yes
The Pastons (of Paston letters fame) are another though less regal example.
FWIW I think the Black Death was a real hiatus and new start in the narrative of English history, whereby there is a sort of consistency and continuity of how we got from there to here; its symbol for me is Chaucer's Prologue to the Tales, which is, I think, the first poetry in English whose contents make immediate psychological sense to0 the modern reader.
Obviously if you took away everyone with an IQ over 100 it would have a dramatic impact (although we have discussed how that would be impossible and also bright people would be born to less bright people because of lurking genes in due course).
The point being made is that society contains a lot of highly intelligent people with IQs equivalent than the so-called 'intellectuals'. @Sean_F was making the point that there are many more people able to fill those slots (obviously not if you cull them all) than there are slots and a lot of it is the luck of the draw in life. We all know of Darwin. Few of Wallace and the many others looking into the same stuff Darwin was looking at. Same sort of thing with Calculus, same with flight, etc.
It will look to be a significant portion of acreage - and give a real boost to Ukraine.
My younger son is married to a Thai lady. Her father is, originally, Cambodian. He fled across the border some 50 years ago and ended up in a Thai border village, marrying a Thai girl and eventually owning a small rice farm. One of his sons went to agricultural college and, last time I heard runs a 'development farm', where he is paid to grow experimental crops and, if they succeed, encourage his neighbours to diversify. Most of his children have done 'well' by the standards of the Thai village, and the same applies to his grandchildren. Obviously, in the case of our mutual grandchildren the genes contributed by the 'Coles' have had some effect, but as I say, all the grandchildren, that I know about at least, have moved up the 'intellectual scale'.
My point is that intellectual and creative abilities are rare. But, they are much less rare than the number of positions that are available to people who possess such gifts.
So, if, say, 200 people can make a decent living by writing novels, and there 2,000 people capable of writing novels to a professional standard, if all those 200 died, another 200 would take their place.
I don't see the issue.
It's unlikely to change.
You'd probably need many generations of such 'selection' to make a large difference.