We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
SwimOn.org Speaking of moonbats, Germaine Greer dusts off her keyboard to put the untimely demise of her compatriot, Steve Irwin, into some sort of perspective:
In 2004, Irwin was accused of illegally encroaching on the space of penguins, seals and humpback whales in Antarctica, where he was filming a documentary called Ice Breaker. An investigation by the Australian Environmental Department resulted in no action being taken, which is not surprising seeing that John Howard, the prime minister, made sure that Irwin was one of the guests invited to a “gala barbecue” for George Bush a few months before. Howard is now Irwin’s chief mourner, which is only fair, seeing that Irwin announced that Howard is the greatest leader the world has ever seen.
So there we have it. Driven to despair by the illegal encroachment, a member of the oppressed Alternative Species community hit back against the Irwinist-BusHitler-Howard cabal. They must adopt a different maritime policy.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
This may be the funniest thing I’ve read all day – your closing summary, that is, not Germaine’s.. um… observations.
I always knew those dirty ray-heads were no-good Ichthyo-fascist evildoers, imposing Sharkia Law upon the people of Bikini Bottom. I’ll bet they are in league with the evil leftie supervillain, Plankton. This sounds like a job for Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy. Someone call Sponge Bush….
Greer is lying, anyway. Irwin said Howard was “the greatest leader Australia has ever had and the greatest leader in the world”, not “[the] greatest leader the world has ever seen.” Tim Blair found another phoney Irwin quote imagined by Greer in her article:
GG: You can just imagine Irwin yelling: “Just look at these beauties! Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse!” (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn’t want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God’s sake.)
TB: That’s an innovative way to criticise someone; imagine them saying something stupid, then correct that imagined statement. The whole game of opinion writing just became a great deal easier.
Indeed.
I find it hard to determine whether Irwin was a serious naturalist as well as a popular entertainer. All the dumbed-down patter and gurning enthusiasm for the TV public are so offputting and obscuring. In that he has a lot in common with fellow super-populists Bush and Howard – almost certainly not an idiot but playing so consistently and pitch-perfect to the idiot vote that it is hard to see how deep it goes or whether there is any other object to the exercise than the play…
Are you sure Greer didn’t phone in her copy? She might have meant to write “galah barbecue”.
He struck me as very much a modern version of Johnny Morris – a rather serious naturalist masquerading behind the ‘larrikin’ facade, as Greer sneeringly pointed out. It is interesting to note that Steve Irwin probably did more in one day to help both save the environment and educate others about wildlife than she has ever done in her life, apart from ensuring that people turn to the Guardian when they have run out of lavatory paper.
PS. No trees were damaged or destroyed to write this post, whereas I can’t say the same for Germaine Greer’s article.
Guy, I think you’re being a little harsh.
By “TV public”, I’m assuming you’re referring to his target audience – children. I suppose you believe Sesame Street plays to idiots, too?
The following is an email I sent yesterday, to a Guardian reading lefty friend –
I carried no brief for Steve Irwin. I found him to be a put off and a bit of a buffoon, however, this vitriolic, venomous, snide, sneering article by Germaine Greer in todays Guardian makes me want to erect a monument to the guy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1865124,00.html
I might not have liked the guy much, but he contributed more to conservation personally than any 500,000 strong group of randomly selected Guardian readers.
It is a pity, I actually like Greer. I always watch her when she is on TV, often finding her both witty and insightful, however, this article is nothing but a mishmash of purile and ignorant spite.
Guy: I fear you are being a bit of a pompous ass – Irwin was both a serious conservationist as well as having a jokey style of an enthused 12 year old. He appealed to children both young and old – yes it could get grating but he had cahones and and a certain charm.
All: for a good fisking of greer see reactionary snobs article here
James,
Maybe Australians are more sophisticated. His audience in the UK was prime-time.
I probably don’t know enough about Irwin, because his shows were unwatchable for me.
There may be another factor at work in G.G.s article.
Not G.G.s hatred of Steve Irwin the T.V. man, or Steve Irwin the conservationist (and he did a lot of very serious work), but G.G.s hatred of Steve Irwin the family man.
In her youth G.G. rejected the path of marriage and children (a path that men like Steve Irwin or John Howard, or George Bush come to that, represent) – in favour of path of having sex with everything that moved.
However, G.G.s path led to her becoming infected, basically her insides rotted and a lot of stuff had to be taken out, and she was left unable to have children.
G.G. made a choice and the lady had every right to make it, but I suspect that she (secretly) rather misses the old Australian way she rejected in her youth – and lashes out against people she sees as symbols of that way of life.
No husband, no children and no grandchildren.
Sad really, the lady should be pitied.