Timmy elsewhere

At the ASI.

Now it’s Theresa May who seems to be deluded about modern slavery. She’s swallowed that ludicrous story about Vietnamese nail bars for example.

19 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. They all are. It’s like global warming, or the homophobia thing. In their class, it’s unspeakable to doubt any of these things. It doesn’t matter how true they are, it’s the believing that matters.

    Basically, the ostentatious morality of puritan christendom. Post-christendom. Whatever.

    “The Nordic Model” is the new smoking ban. Everyone has to do it, so we can set the mutaween rounding up “johns” like the barbarian Americans do. Which is where it came from, not Nordicland. Good old Jane Addams, the vicious old baggage. It was Wilson (not Harold, Woodrow) who got the first white slave traffic fantasists attached to the League Of Nations. Which is probably why they couldn’t do anything about Mussolini invading Abyssinia. Too busy worrying about imaginary white slaves crossing the Atlantic on steamers.

    Anyway, unless we hang most of the current ruling class, we’re not going to get rid of this nonsense. Believing in bullshit is a defining class characteristic. Recruitment to the elite goes something like, “Fartington-Smythe is a rising star. She has a PPE and believes fervently in absolute bullshit. Can we find a constituency to parachute her into?”.

  2. It’s much simpler than any of that. Theresa May is a (possibly otherwise unemployable politician. When she ‘leaves office’ she will be looking for a job in a quango – any quango will do, and one which spreads scares about ‘slavery’ is as good as any other.

    The system is one big parasite. She doesn’t believe in this nonsense any more than O’Brien really believed Oceania was at war with Eurasia.

  3. Interested-

    I dunno. I think there’s such a phenomenon as believing you believe, if you see what I mean. I think people in a clique indulge in these acts of belief as a matter of social convention. I don’t think in the main they knowingly lie, it’s more that they become truth-avoidant. Or rather, avoidant of encountering anything that may contradict the communal belief system.

    The other thing is that they’re technocrats, so they live in a world that confuses data with actualité, considering them actually synonymous. You see this a lot in economics, where “the economy” ceases to be production of goods and services in a real sense, and becomes the aggregate statistics. When they say, “the economy grew by 0.01% more than forecast”, they really believe that that is what actually happened, rather than that there’s a little blip on the GDP survey that probably isn’t of much significance.

    So by ensuring they get data only from “trusted sources” rather than other sources or personal experience, they can maintain this illusory reality they live in.

  4. But slavery is common in the UK.

    Millions of people are forced to work to support other people they don’t like. They can be denied access to their own children on a whim, and the courts treat them as second class citizens as a matter of policy.

    We call it divorce.

  5. The Speccie commentators are as pigshit-thick as the Guardian gang. There isn’t one of them with the brains to only state its all bollocks and May is a talking out of her fat arse. And helping to make all of us even more slaves of the state.

  6. @Ian B, yep, I think there is some truth in that.

    It helps to explain why a lot of people – leftists, primarily, though I suppose I would say that – cling to insane political ideas long after they have been shown to be insane, and are even prepared to sacrifice their own lives (more often the lives of others) in the cause.

    It is psychologically extremely challenging to repudiate pretty much everything one has believed since one began believing things.

    I think this partly explains why people like David Horowitz, Norman Podhoretz, David Mamet, Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, are particularly reviled by their former comrades.

    They find it unsettling.

    (Theodore Dalrymple has written extensively of the psychological difficulties involved.)

    All that said, I also tend to the view that many of them really are just self-interested – at least, the knowledge that they will be well-rewarded for ‘doing good’ keeps the internal worm at bay.

  7. I DON’T UNDERSTAND

    Is selling bad things bad, or is buying them? Because when it’s poor benighted heroin addicts, it’s the dealers who are bad nasty men, but when it’s sex apparently it’s the other way round.

    I have said it before, and I shall say it again; the best thing that could happen to disabuse these cretins of their lackwit ideas would be for all punters, everywhere, to boycott paying for sexual services of any kind for a month or so.

  8. Believing in bullshit is a defining class characteristic. Recruitment to the elite goes something like, “Fartington-Smythe is a rising star. She has a PPE and believes fervently in absolute bullshit. Can we find a constituency to parachute her into?”

    Hmmm, up to a point, Lord Copper.* Having schooled, matriculated and graduated with the majority of the next (and some current) load of Fartington-Smythes, most of them don’t believe in very much at all other than their own innate righteousness and if they do, it’ll be knocked out of them through debating at the Oxford / Cambridge Union Society and then the long old slog for selection, during which they will have to simultaneously ham up their tory / socialist credentials to the constituency party, and play them down to the electorate. By the time they become a junior MP they’re so used to believing that black is white because it is expedient so to do that they’ve mostly forgotten what they thought originally anyway.** Most would be equally happy in whichever of the three parties was in the ascendent.

    The one’s who know what they believe about things tend to end up as lobbyists or SpAds.

    I prefer the tories, by the by. They’re not quite so sanctimonious as long as you avoid the religious ones and the catering tends to be better.

    *which, if you remember your Waugh, doesn’t mean ‘up to a point’ at all, it means ‘I disagree completely.’

    ** I think you’re generally allowed one issue to really care about so long as it fits in with the general ideology and can never really happen for practical reasons. So tories are allowed to be anti-abortion, for example, and labour are allowed to be pro-nationalisation.

  9. “it’ll be knocked out of them through debating at the Oxford / Cambridge Union Society ”
    Good grief! Surely you don’t believe that? It’s exactly in that environment this sort of nonsense takes firmest root. Self referential groups, mostly separated from the base reality of normal life.

  10. Ian B,

    I dunno. I think there’s such a phenomenon as believing you believe, if you see what I mean. I think people in a clique indulge in these acts of belief as a matter of social convention. I don’t think in the main they knowingly lie, it’s more that they become truth-avoidant. Or rather, avoidant of encountering anything that may contradict the communal belief system.

    If you want to go into politics in the UK parliament, you pretty much have to fit in, at least for many years, with what the Labour or Tory party believe in. If you rise to the top, you may be able to change it, but those are big cavaets. And because FPTP encourages a duopoly, it’s hard to create a new party that people will vote for.

    I spent some years on the fringes of party politics and I realised that doing so was a waste of my time. Helping to create disruptive technologies does far more good. You throw a few quid at someone who is developing a way of making a law redundant, you effectively change the law

  11. @BIS

    Err, do you know how CUS / OUS works? You get assigned positions. Ergo they quite often end up passionately defending a view to which they are, personally, diamtretrically opposed.

    What ‘takes root’ is the idea that they are right by virtue of being them.

  12. Self referential groups, mostly separated from the base reality of normal life.

    that bit, inter alia, I do agree with.

  13. Sam
    It’s knowing how CUS/OUS debating works leads me to the opinion. It’s the notion, somehow debating something reaches a useful conclusion. The only conclusion it reaches is who wins the debate.
    You agree with the second part?
    That’s why.

  14. Just to see the propaganda campaign playing, the Telegraph has a big anti-legality multimedia presentation today. May as well just accept that we’re going Nordic.

  15. @BIS bit confused but we seem to be arguing a similar point, so I’ll leave it.

    @Ian of COURSE we are. This is the perfect issue; the puritans, the femibores, the authoritarians, the equality-enforcers, and the bansturbators can all get behind it. This is pretty much the only issue that unites every single group, right and left, spiritual and secular, that want to tell everyone else how they’re allowed to live.

  16. From the Telegraph pr0n-extravaganza*:

    “Germany has more prostitutes per capita than any other country in the continent, ..: 400,000 at the last count, serving 1.2 million men every day. Those figures were released a decade ago, soon after Germany made buying sex, selling sex, pimping and brothel-keeping legal in 2002. Two years later, prostitution in Germany was thought to be worth 6 billion euros – roughly the same as Porsche or Adidas that year. It’s now estimated to be 15 billion euros”

    Germany has 35 million males over the age of 15. One in 30 of which were.dipping their wicks, daily, in 2002. Allowing for inflation, we can presume that’s now in the region of 1 in 15. (Unless there’s greedy buggers going round twice). In 2002, more than one in a hundred of all Fraus & Fraulines were on the game. Given we should be excluding pensioners & Angela Merkle (for obvious reasons) that brings it down to 1 in 65, so we’ll be presuming 1 in 30ish today. if we’re saying the industry’s “grown”
    So it looks like Kraut whores get around one trick a day.
    (Not really much different from being married, is it?)

    *Well, it’s bansturbator pr0n, anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *