From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com
wrote in message
news:1162963749.473117.60540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ROBBIE wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:1162874247.999986.272370@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> "What we always forget is that the overwhelming bulk of the British
> proletariat does not live in Britain, but in Asia and Africa. It is not
> in Hitler's power, for instance, to make a penny an hour a normal
> industrial wage; it is perfectly normal in India, and we are at great
> pains to keep it so. One gets some idea of the real relationship of
> England and India when one reflects that the per capita annual income
> in England is something over £80, and in India about £7. It is quite
> common for an Indian coolie's leg to be thinner than the average
> Englishman's arm. And there is nothing racial in this, for well-fed
> members of the same races are of normal physique; it is due to simple
> starvation." (Not Counting Niggers, 1939).
">
> When I get a spare minute I'm going to write a similar essay about the
> smugness of people like you and the people who run Britain called 'Not
> Counting Chavs' - because you see I live in England 2006 not 1939.
>
>
>
> >Of course now the empire has come home to roost
>
> I'm surprised you see that way. The situation we have now is the upshot of
> a
> double whammy: the greed of the mercantile Right and the self-loathing,
> self-destructiveness of the middle-class Left.
>
>
> and there is a distinct
> shortage of lebensraum in Britain, and in the UK the average coolie's
> leg is now no thinner than the curry-and-lager fed haunch of the modern
> John Bull.
>
> Ah; here comes the hostile snobism that lurks under your outlook. Why is
> it
> that underneath the most noisily pious there lurks titanic misanthropy?
> True
> in every case from St Paul to George Harrison.
>
>
> Although there is a great deal of talk, in this green age, of
> overpopulation causing a drain on natural resources like water in the
> United States, the situation is totally different from the UK.
>
> In the US developers can, almost at will, purchase large tracts of
> more-or-less virgin land and build large numbers of homes, shopping
> malls, gas stations etc., making huge economies of scale, and thus
> making affordable housing available. At least it has been that way
> until relatively recently, though starter home prices relative to wages
> have escalated alarmingly since the coup d'etat of six years ago.
>
> In the UK, there is very little land available for building, and when
> it does become available, then it comes in small parcels, which makes
> economies of scale impossible. The cost of homes in the UK seems to
> bear very little relation to the cost of construction and materials, so
> I imagine that there must be very fat profit margins, especially since
> sales commissions are tiny compared to the United States--about 1% vs
> 7%.
>
> >The good news is that New Zealand is about the same size as the UK, but
> has a population about the size of that of Manchester, so those who
> >want space can always ship out.
>
> So your usual crass non-answer then? Hey ho. By the way, sort your
> attribution carets out.
>
"Curry-and-lager fed", is that what is getting you worked up now?
No it's your blithe and specious pronouncements.
I
originally wrote "beef-and-ale fed", thinking that it sounded
Orwellian, but then decided to update it.
I'm no economist, but it seems to me that increased prosperity in
industrial nations demands continual economic growth, which in turn
means an ever growing population so that more can be consumed.
We've had five million unemployed for many years. The 'we need 'em' argument
isn't true. To here a lefty arguing for it - for economic prosperity - makes
me larf.
Thus the
arrival of each group of immigrants promotes the previously arrived
cohort a little higher up the economic feeding chain.
I know plenty of poor people for whom that simply isn't true. It's a
specious argument.
>English people have some strange ideas.
You're the kind of person who could walk through a country of people dying
of diahorrea and praising god while they're doing it and you'd never say
that.
>For example, good manners are
taken to be a sign of good breeding, even though it is clear to anyone
>that manners are the result of training, not breeding.
Utter bollocks. I haven't heard the expression 'good breeding' used by an
ordinary person ever. Good manners are valued because they are pleasant and
make life easier and more civilized. Which would you prefer: the sullen
rudeness that is fast becoming default or a good manners?
I realise it's a challenge for a wealthy champagne marxist to answer this
but please try.
Similarly, it is
assumed that working classness is a hereditary condition, which,
>equally clearly, it is not.
Who assumes that?
ROBBIE
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
