Blog powered by Typepad

« Truth will out in a dropped bollock! | Main | The dreaded human factor! »

Friday, 30 April 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Was it Orwell who said of the gross stupidity and meretricious nonsense of pre-war (and post-war, apparently) leftism that only an intellectual could agree with it? Kamm is ferociously intelligent . . . and a damn fool, although his demolition of Chomsky is a wonder to behold!

Yes, that about sums it up, 'Bongers', because whilst I can't agree with much of his liberal/progressive views he is superb in the trenches against the really dangerous enemy to all of us, the totalitarian Left and their partners in crime, the extreme Right. Also, I do enjoy his demolition of the 'Shakespeare wasn't written by Shakespeare' brigade.

I suspect that "intellectually incurious" is a subtle way of comparing Brown to W. But to object to the intellectually incurious while worshipping St Toni is just absurd - Toni had no intellect to be incurious with.

Well, 'DM', to be fair, he did once talk about "endogenous growth theory" and my first immediate thought was that he was talking about ladies', er, sensitive parts, but then I thought to myself that can't be right, not him, he must be on about some new gardening compost. Then I found out he was boring on about 'the dismal science' - should have guessed, really!

"Neo-classical endogenous growth theory" was Brown's catchphrase. Or, as Heseltine pointed out, "It's not Brown's, it's Balls'".

Oliver Kamm is imperfect like any other human being, and 5%-10% of his posts I cannot bring myself to agree with. But his incredible knowledge of politics and modern history, stemming from what appears to be an uncanny gift of being able to recall a relevant passage from one of thousands of authoritative books, makes his blog the first one I read on any given day.

Sorry, Gentlemen, for the delay in responding to two summaries which are just about spot on, in my opinion.

I've said it before. Kamm has all the ponderous power of a brachiosaurus, but he picks on easy targets (Noam Chomsky, people who don't think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, the poor sap (Neil Clarke?) who tried to sue him for libel, holocaust/Srebrenice deniers etc. etc.). When it comes to the big, difficult arguments, he's pedestrian, as this example shows.

Yes, 'H', he can be a bit of a 'sif', as Bernard Levin used to call call 'single issue fanatics', although Oliver, even if he does tend to bang on about things rather too often, does at least have several issues about which he begins to foam at the lips. I do think that when it comes to politics it is important to be possessed of an ideology/philosophy (you choose) by which to guide yourself, but the problem with people like Oliver is that he allows the ideology to over-ride everything else. A true Tory, of course (which he is not) would view all ideology as suspect. As usual, I straddle the fence which is both painful and ridiculous - so no change there, then!

I should add that part of the reason I like his blog is the quality of the writing, particularly when he is sticking the knife in - such delicacy, such finesse, such - gloating!

The comments to this entry are closed.