Car crash blogging from Eustonia
by Jura Watchmaker, 17 April 2008
Car crash blogging is far from unusual (oh, for the services of a diligent and wise editor!), and I’ve published a few posts that now make me cringe with embarrassment. But Marko Attila Hoare’s latest defence of neo-Burkeism is a particularly fine example of the genre.
Take the following, which has been flagged this morning by Paulie…
“There are plenty of things wrong with the existing order here in the UK, and plenty of worthwhile fights left to fight. We need, for example, to free people from the oppression and misery of living on sink estates; break the hold of crime and violence over our young people; restore their belief in the value of education and self-improvement; provide child-care for single mothers to enable them to work; provide homes for all our citizens and residents; integrate all our ethnic and religious minorities into our citizenry; and so on. My personal belief is that the UK’s social problems are caused more by lack of education and opportunity for those lower down the social ladder, and by deficiencies in popular culture among the population at large, than they are by poverty or inequalities in wealth. I view, for example, the fact that our Labour government is committed to the target of half of all school-leavers going to university as more inspiring than any number of radicals writing about public ownership of the means of production. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush…”
“… deficiencies in popular culture among the population at large”? Very telling, that, as is “lower down the social ladder”. Given the social and cultural biases displayed in Hoare’s latest post and elsewhere in his writing, surely it’s a bit rich for the man to complain about the “Burkean” epithet.
Much of Hoare’s latest post is a diatribe against this blog written in a style very similar to that of the ultra-leftists he damns with an almost aristocratic haughtiness. One or two of us are, it seems, worthy of the great man’s attention, but the rest of us are far too common; no different from the Spartacist League or the Workers Revolutionary Party. That’s an interesting if unoriginal use of demonising rhetorical devices. Now say what you will about Daniel Davies, but that part of his criticism of certain Euston Manifesto signatories is highly accurate.
Other drink-soaked ones can speak for themselves. I may not be the sort of person one invites for tea at Claridges, but I’m entirely happy with that, and find Hoare’s little rant today mildly amusing. Maybe he finds it difficult to cope emotionally with being called a bore.
But hang on a second! The funny thing is, I could swear that Hoare had this forum for “sectarian hatred, frustration and bitterness” on his blogroll until very recently. If I’m right on this and wasn’t hallucinating, what does it say about Hoare’s latest tantrum?
And apparently I am correct on this matter at least, according to the Oracle of Edinburgh. We were once listed in Hoare’s roll of honour, but then he took us off. Then we went back on when one of us said something kind about the Squire of Greater Surbiton. And now we’re off again.
Call me a shit-stirrer, but I’m beginning to have fun with this.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 12:07
You just hate ‘The West’ Sedgey — you can’t fool this ‘lumpen’.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 12:10
Aachhh! I’m just sooo ANGRY!!!
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 12:15
I’m not overly familiar with Mr Hoare’s works, and I don’t think his diagram was very instructive or helpful (for instance, I’m pro-Western in that I think we have the best socio-political system so far created, but I’m also anti-Western in that I think the West was and is responsible for a great number of terrible crimes, that there are still unacceptable levels of inequality built into the economic structure of our societies, and I also find it impossible to believe that this is the best that the human collective can come up with). But my impression is that Mr Hoare is a fairly standard middle class idealist social democrat (nothing wrong with that, in my view, as it puts him in the second most plausible group politically, after Marxist humanists).
The decents, as you are calling them—aping the “hilarist” propaganda of those on the centre-right, like Mr Davies, whose views are a much better match for the “Burkean” epithet, as far as I can tell—simply don’t have an idea of what will replace liberal or social democratic capitalism, but be better than it. In that, they join the rest of us who do think that something better should be possible, but who are also not sure exactly what it might be—outside of the usual, rather vague notions of extending democracy to economic life.
That is, I think you are right to stress that unjust and wasteful inequalities continue to exist, even under advanced liberal or social democratic capitalist societies—the most economically successful, socially egalitarian and politically freest societies that have so far existed—but I don’t think the majority of the decents (though I’m not really sure who this includes) would disagree, however idealistically—and therefore unconvincingly—they formulate causal connections.
That said, I don’t think you’d disagree that to bring most of the rest of the world up to our level of inequality would be a huge advance for them, if it is possible.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 12:20
I dunno about none of that there book learning stuff mister.
Excuse me while I take my pitbull for a walk and a piss and shit.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 12:28
I give it a week before he starts using “undeserving poor”.
His comparison of the ‘exotic’ struggles of the Third World to the ‘privileged’ Western working class is pretty telling as well. I’ve seen it before. Generally from Maoists.
I’m still kinda confused why he cares so much about people “conflating all those outside the radical left with conservatism.” He’s already described his differences with conservatives as “these are differences within the family”. Why would you possibly get outraged at being mistaken for another member of your self-described political family. Hell, if you call them anarchists, council communists will explain why they aren’t. For hours. But they don’t get all shrill about it.
But remember, suggesting that Hoare’s refusal to directly debate, his dismissal of class, his tendency to pontificate and his temper tantrums when people don’t treat his views with the seriousness he thinks they deserve are in no way a reflection of his class background. And to suggest otherwise is EXACTLY the same as saying he doesn’t have a right to his opinions because he’s middle class. I’d almost respect that as a clever rhetorical device. If I thought he was bright enough to be doing it deliberately.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 12:42
Given the target-rich environment of numpties, clerical fascists, pomo academics and apologists, I find the desire to have arguments with people who are effectively on the right side of this fight incredibly tiresome and distracting.
And pointless.
Etc.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 12:54
“on the right side”
har har fucking har!
The intertubes is grand — space here is not limited — apost on one thing does not mean another thing can’t be posted on — he isn’t on the right side of anything etc etc etc
Ooops — forgot my place in the hierarchy of the social system there for a moment - mustn’t think i can engage with me betters sir.
Fuck the dirty little slimeball. the Tory fuckfaced piece of shit.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 13:49
My personal belief is that the UK’s social problems are caused more by lack of education and opportunity for those lower down the social ladder, and by deficiencies in popular culture among the population at large, than they are by poverty or inequalities in wealth.
This is just the old Tory platitude that society’s ills are caused by attitudes.
A column in the Mail awaits…
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 19:39
If refusal to seek accommodation with the system which alienates the many from the products of their labour to fill the pockets of the few, and condemns millions in this country to casual ‘employment’ at £5.52/hr, and in other countries to degradation, slavery, poverty, disease, starvation and death makes me vulgar, ’sectarian’ and irrelevant, I’m not bothered — at least I’m not a Tory turncoat.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 22:02
Careful now.
Else Hocemolinakafu might throw a hissy fit.
Personally, I love Hoare, he has a Tourettes-like inability to hide the sour faced streak of golf club bigotry that runs right through Eustonia, the rest of them must read his bathchairesque maunderings through their fingers.
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 22:16
Another thing…
I don’t subscribe to the idea that the dog which is whipped by its master should aspire to become its master–rather it should tear out its master’s throat (’his master’s voice’–heh).
Thursday 17 April 2008 at 23:16
Meanwhile, Zdenek Vajdak – the Eustonian and HP Saucer with a special interest in torture as a legitimate instrument of foreign policy – continues to tie himself in philosophical knots in the comments thread following Daniel Davies’ CiF article. This has been going on for three days now, and I fear that Vajdak will only be saved by the moderator hitting the off switch. Going by standard CiF rules this should happen anytime now.
Mercy! Mercy! Free the South African One!
Friday 18 April 2008 at 10:32
I don’t subscribe to the idea that the dog which is whipped by its master should aspire to become its master
But the whipping is necessary and it’s for the dog’s own good. The dog should be grateful for it. Clever people understand why and can explain it.
(c) MAH 2008.
Friday 18 April 2008 at 13:00
It’s all the dog’s fault for watching Big Brother and eating chips.