From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com
wrote in message
news:1163029103.233684.97300@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
ROBBIE wrote:
> 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?
>
>The same people who assume there are 5 million unemployed.
>According to government statistics
Time to say, fuck off you silly old sod.
(thanks for being as evasive as the other pompous champage socialist here)
ROBBIE
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
