08 February 2007

The Intelligentsia Emigrates to London

I am apoplectic over this complete heap of shit which pretends to be a piece of journalism from the Economist Boyars of Belgravia.  So ridiculously annoyed that you will have to dig the reasonable out of the useless.

A hint as to the title of this post;

"But the mood in moneyed London is still largely positive towards Russia. In thinking London it is increasingly negative. The battle continues."

Where is thinking London to be found?  Clearly not in the Economist which predicted that the collapse of oil would lead to Russia's destruction, nor that Intelligentsia love-child Edward "a monkey would have out-performed my predictive prowess" Lucas predictive prowess regarding almost anything in Russia (and why am I writing this in the past tense) has left him a laughing stock, but still much quoted.  Unless of course thinking is a synonym for morally superior failure to spot the obvious. 

Oh to be a member of the "Thinking Classes."  Would that make me like the the Soviet Union's Intelligentsia; outwardly indignant - soul sold down the river (or at least as far as Zvenigorod).  Happy to read Turgenev and (small frisson of rebellion) Mir - petrified of exerting their moral authority. 

Maybe, if I re-found my moral sight, I could be a member of London's intelligentsia where I would be worried about; which school my child went to, what car I drove and.. oh that's it.  If you want to dispute my bored-beyond-belief recollection of banker/lawyer-land dinner parties over the last 5 years in London stand by for a real rant. 

I could however, join the moneyed classes who spotted that Russia has a spot of oil, a bit of gas and a population willing to doll themselves up in frippery and finery.  These are the same "morally myopic" (hyphened surely - ed?) moneyed classes who spent at least one night not worrying about west London schools and figured out that Russia is a desperately corrupt place (any bids for a Deputy Ministry at the Oil and Gas Minsitry under $5mn for a 1 year appointment not accepted) but that if democracy is the will of the people as opposed to what you (see Thinking Classes above) will the people to think Russians are at least as happy with their lot as you are with Blair/Brown/Cameron.  There is corruption and there is Corruption - but if Loans-for-Peerages and sexed-up intelligence aren't CORRUPTION then we are in desperate need of a moral compass.  And that's before we all agree to start in to morally-religous otherwise degenerate Bush-dom.

No pretension that making money helps develop a middle-class.  The morally myopic make money, the middle-class makes Genghis Khan look only marginally more right wing than Scotland's own English Home Secretary (work your way through that Lothian question). 

Here's a suggestion; think, don't write, for a calm collected moment about the Scooter Libby trial.  Consider your profession to be on trial and take steps to write with balance and intelligence - or write about your own extinction as the much-derided amateur press do what you should be doing only better - and more cheaply.

Yours from nowhere near Tunbridge Wells.


Technorati Tags: ,

5 comments:

La Russophobe said...

It's disappointing that you fail to examine your own biases in this matter. How will the rejection of Russia by Britain affect your personal income?

The fact that you need to raise the name Scooter Libby to defend your position on Russia is pretty clear proof of how untenable it is.

The Ruminator said...

If you actually read the post as opposed to attacking supposed support for Russia you would discover that this is an attack on the uselessness of the press.

If you can't be bothered to read the stuff then don't bother leaving comments.

La Russophobe said...

You're attacking the press for attacking Russia and thereby undermining your personal income. You have a vested interest which you don't warn readers about. That's the worst kind of journalism there is. You're a flagrant hypocrite.

Aleks said...

The Economist is well known for being, well, 'crap' when it comes to Russia.

It only takes itself seriously, so I wouldn't get to wound up about it.

Still, you're famous now that your blog has been commented on by Kim 'la russophobe' Z(something) or Il Jong(?) who posts under quite a few different names: http://www.exile.ru/2007-February-08/russophobie-doo_who_are_you.html

Best Regards,

Aleks

Aleks said...

The Economist is well known for being, well, 'crap' when it comes to Russia.

It only takes itself seriously, so I wouldn't get to wound up about it.

Still, you're famous now that your blog has been commented on by Kim 'la russophobe' Z(something) who posts under quite a few different names: http://www.exile.ru/2007-February-08/russophobie-doo_who_are_you.html

Best Regards,

Aleks

08 February 2007

The Intelligentsia Emigrates to London

I am apoplectic over this complete heap of shit which pretends to be a piece of journalism from the Economist Boyars of Belgravia.  So ridiculously annoyed that you will have to dig the reasonable out of the useless.

A hint as to the title of this post;

"But the mood in moneyed London is still largely positive towards Russia. In thinking London it is increasingly negative. The battle continues."

Where is thinking London to be found?  Clearly not in the Economist which predicted that the collapse of oil would lead to Russia's destruction, nor that Intelligentsia love-child Edward "a monkey would have out-performed my predictive prowess" Lucas predictive prowess regarding almost anything in Russia (and why am I writing this in the past tense) has left him a laughing stock, but still much quoted.  Unless of course thinking is a synonym for morally superior failure to spot the obvious. 

Oh to be a member of the "Thinking Classes."  Would that make me like the the Soviet Union's Intelligentsia; outwardly indignant - soul sold down the river (or at least as far as Zvenigorod).  Happy to read Turgenev and (small frisson of rebellion) Mir - petrified of exerting their moral authority. 

Maybe, if I re-found my moral sight, I could be a member of London's intelligentsia where I would be worried about; which school my child went to, what car I drove and.. oh that's it.  If you want to dispute my bored-beyond-belief recollection of banker/lawyer-land dinner parties over the last 5 years in London stand by for a real rant. 

I could however, join the moneyed classes who spotted that Russia has a spot of oil, a bit of gas and a population willing to doll themselves up in frippery and finery.  These are the same "morally myopic" (hyphened surely - ed?) moneyed classes who spent at least one night not worrying about west London schools and figured out that Russia is a desperately corrupt place (any bids for a Deputy Ministry at the Oil and Gas Minsitry under $5mn for a 1 year appointment not accepted) but that if democracy is the will of the people as opposed to what you (see Thinking Classes above) will the people to think Russians are at least as happy with their lot as you are with Blair/Brown/Cameron.  There is corruption and there is Corruption - but if Loans-for-Peerages and sexed-up intelligence aren't CORRUPTION then we are in desperate need of a moral compass.  And that's before we all agree to start in to morally-religous otherwise degenerate Bush-dom.

No pretension that making money helps develop a middle-class.  The morally myopic make money, the middle-class makes Genghis Khan look only marginally more right wing than Scotland's own English Home Secretary (work your way through that Lothian question). 

Here's a suggestion; think, don't write, for a calm collected moment about the Scooter Libby trial.  Consider your profession to be on trial and take steps to write with balance and intelligence - or write about your own extinction as the much-derided amateur press do what you should be doing only better - and more cheaply.

Yours from nowhere near Tunbridge Wells.


Technorati Tags: ,

5 comments:

La Russophobe said...

It's disappointing that you fail to examine your own biases in this matter. How will the rejection of Russia by Britain affect your personal income?

The fact that you need to raise the name Scooter Libby to defend your position on Russia is pretty clear proof of how untenable it is.

The Ruminator said...

If you actually read the post as opposed to attacking supposed support for Russia you would discover that this is an attack on the uselessness of the press.

If you can't be bothered to read the stuff then don't bother leaving comments.

La Russophobe said...

You're attacking the press for attacking Russia and thereby undermining your personal income. You have a vested interest which you don't warn readers about. That's the worst kind of journalism there is. You're a flagrant hypocrite.

Aleks said...

The Economist is well known for being, well, 'crap' when it comes to Russia.

It only takes itself seriously, so I wouldn't get to wound up about it.

Still, you're famous now that your blog has been commented on by Kim 'la russophobe' Z(something) or Il Jong(?) who posts under quite a few different names: http://www.exile.ru/2007-February-08/russophobie-doo_who_are_you.html

Best Regards,

Aleks

Aleks said...

The Economist is well known for being, well, 'crap' when it comes to Russia.

It only takes itself seriously, so I wouldn't get to wound up about it.

Still, you're famous now that your blog has been commented on by Kim 'la russophobe' Z(something) who posts under quite a few different names: http://www.exile.ru/2007-February-08/russophobie-doo_who_are_you.html

Best Regards,

Aleks