Comments by "oneoflokis" (@oneoflokis) on "The Spectator"
channel.
-
25
-
15
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jde-jj1lu Actually, in THIS rare case, it is! I've already worked it out. From the point of view of the HUMAN RACE. IF a couple of hundred nuclear warheads are coming your way, you are doomed. IF you retaliate, you also kill most of the people on the other continent. IF you forbear to do so, at least half of humanity will survive! (They will not be able to "invade" your country as it will be far too radioactive, for centuries. Look at Chenobyl.)
Therefore, a weapon that would be pointless to use, is a useless weapon. Therefore, why pay for it?
But the unions wouldn't have let Corbyn get rid of Trident, because of the jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jesus and Loki in a handbasket! 🙄😏 I'm glad I clicked on this, as I almost never do on Spectator "recommendations" on YouTube. I didn't know about this until now: I don't take the Telegraph: but trust only a Tory paper to point this out! All the f**cking "liberal" lefty rags obviously won't. 😏
So they're attacking Dahl now? AND when he was voted I think the most popular English children's author in only the 2000s; and children reading out his poems were featured all over the BBC and other channels; and when there's a Roald Dahl Prize in his name, I think it's for humorous children's fiction...
Are these nitwits going to try to change JRR Tolkien next? 🙄 The actual texts, I mean: not some kind of TV adaptation as was recently made.
Yeah. About Dahl "fat-shaming". I think that all that is referring to, is ONE sole character: that of Augustus Gloop, in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. 🙄😏 I was a chubby child, and I was never offended or embarrassed by Augustus Gloop. You see: yon little wokeites, as WELL as I think the makers of this video, MISS THE POINT, of Dahl's grotesques, and they are grotesques. (Though I think the Charlie stories are one of the few instances in which he features child grotesques: most of his are adults.) They personify UNATTRACTIVE QUALITIES; which are not so much physical, as they are to do with their personalities; how they are unpleasant and selfish and also reckless; in that they disregard the advice of a qualified adult such as Willy Wonka the factory owner, and so they come to a sticky conclusion. 😏 (Hmm: nowadays that could be a sort of parable for Trump voters and the like!)
The Chocolate Factory story is of course a cautionary tale: one of a genre which adults have almost certainly been telling children since time immemorial.
If "wokeites" object to that - well they'll be coming for Mr Ballen on YouTube next! 😏
Mum yeah: back to the "fat-shaming". Personally, as a chubby small child in the 1970s, I was a little bit sad that there didn't seem to be any books featuring either male or female chubby kids as heroes! To this day, one of the FEW I can think of is a
boy called Frederick Algernon Trotteville (called by his friends jocularly Fatty, as much for his initials as anything!). Who is however a genius, a master of disguise, and a great fan and emulator of Sherlock Holmes! 🙂 He is from a lesser known series of Enid Blyton's called The Five Find-Outers. Unfortunately, unlike her The Famous Five, the Find-Outers were never adapted or televised, though those were the series of her books featuring kid detectives that I preferred.
And personally: I for one find the attitude to let us say "heavier kids" of a writer such as the more contemporary J K Rowling much more disturbing (not that I'm trying to be down on her, but I do notice that she is very much on the thin side, and so are the heroes of her children's
fiction).
In the Potter books and movies both, the heavier kids are portrayed as being literally, the "heavies"! Ie, the villains and the bullies! (When it's likely to be the opposite way in real life. 😏) There are two heavy boys who are portrayed as both pretty thick and lacking self-direction, who are the sidekicks throughout of the far suaver (and svelter) child villain, Draco Malfoy. (See - in Rowling, the fat kids don't even get to be top or sophisticated villains! Oh: and Harry's cousin who he lives with at Privet Drive and who likewise bullies him is portrayed as a fat child. I think Rowling has some kind of unconscious hang-up here! 😏)
And this is something I have never seen Rowling criticised for. All sorts of other racialist nonsense, yes: this, never.
Whereas Dahl, "fat-shaming"?? Bah! 🙄
You don't NEED government agencies, or the Church, to BOWDLERISE (that's the word you need! 😏) works of especially children's literature in the interests of PROPAGANDA. All you need are some "convinced" (usually middle class, often white) young(ish) "woke" zealots working at publishing houses ("woke" being the home of cancel culture) to do this. It IS a case of culture (and of the middle-class intelligentsia which is convinced it is "left" when it is just into identity politics).
I think that all this stupid fashion in publishing should be of concern to, and should be fought against by GENUINE socialists (like myself) who are on the libertarian end of that spectrum, and who greatly value freedom of speech.
I mean - Phrases in Roald Dahl being replaced?? WHY the hell are his children and grandchildren agreeing to this?? 😡😡
It certainly isn't for commercial reasons, as the guy onscreen admits. (He is sitting on the f***ing fence too much of the time however, instead of chewing these ignorant asses out. 😏)
I think the saying should be rather: "Go bland go broke". Because: if you are a committee of timid little mice, trying to please EVERYBODY influential you can think of (especially Israel! 🙄), and thus are unwilling to take or to allow artistic risks, then what you produce or edit will be 💩. (Bit like the attitude of YouTube really: trying to bowdlerise everything down for a children's market. 😏)
Real art (whether for children or not) takes risks. It says the unsayable. I know it; Loki (my Patron! 🙂) knows it; Dahl knew it; the likes of Melvin Burgess know it.
Bugger bowdlerism!
Roald Dahl was an EXTREMELY moral writer in my view; who loved the underdog, and hated adult abuse of children (obviously based on memories of his boarding school) and he hated bullies in general.
I have however read YA books by other English authors published DECADES later, that in some way condoned bullying. 😏 And Dahl doesn't. I praise him for that. I've often thought it was something that the post-war generation of writers understood, and that the Thatcher and subsequent generations of selfish neoliberal prats don't. 😏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1