Media

Jun 1, 2018

Rundle reads the right so you don’t have to: nasty, brutish and short edition

When attempting to write a takedown on a commentator, the right would do well to make sure they're not just providing free advertising.

Guy Rundle — Correspondent-at-large

Guy Rundle

Correspondent-at-large

A delicious bit of godwhining (genuinely comparing something to Nazis cos you're in a snit with it) in the Spectator, which continues to carry the ageless, deathless ramblings of Taki Theodoracopulos, Greek playboy, accidental drug smuggler, occasional writer of racist rants and "soi-disante anti-semite". He has made a career of "didn't have a column and wrote one anyway":

I’m back in New York and digesting the five glorious days spent in Normandy. What was the fighting all about, you may ask: was it about freedom, equality, cultural diversity, man’s dignity -- all liberal catchphrases these days?

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

11 comments

Leave a comment

11 thoughts on “Rundle reads the right so you don’t have to: nasty, brutish and short edition

  1. Roger Clifton

    It is not true that “fossil fuels now stymie renewables”. The gas industry is generally supportive of the renewables movement. I once attended a “Carbon Free Day” (or words to that effect) that sported a banner saying that it was proudly sponsored by Origin Energy, the clean energy provider. Indeed, in the days when Oz had a carbon tax, Origin operated a wind farm.

    If ever the love affair falters, all the gas industry has to do to stymie renewables is convert all its single stage turbines to combined stage. The latter have a slow-responding steam stage that reduces gas consumption more than a wind farm matched to the naked turbine. Unmatched, wind cannot provide electricity on demand.

  2. Jonathan Holmes

    Sorry, Guy, but both you and Terry have the wrong century – not 18th century, not 16th century, but 17th century. Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan was published in 1651, during the near-anarchy that succeeded the English civil war and preceded the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. A last plea for absolute monarchy at a time when, in England at least, the idea of the divine right of kings was going the way of Charles I’s head.

  3. Steve Watson

    Guy, you are being a bit hard on Terry McCrann. Not many journalists would be honest enough to admit to being friends with Christopher Skase.
    McCrann so did in several vomit-inducing articles urging Skase to come back to Oz to face the music, because as his friend, McCrann knew that he was a better man than the crook the Australian public so loathed.

    1. AR

      Was he not one of Bond’s boosters as well?

  4. John of Alphington

    Terry is of average height. But, yes.

  5. AR

    Very continent of Grundle not to mention Tacky’s worship of the Wehrmacht in general – he has a particular thang for their spiffy uniforms – and is still of the opinion that it (WWII) was all a dreadful misunderstanding when the real enemy was, and still is, Bolshievism. Also a fan of Golden Dawn.
    His weekly rants can be read for free on takimag.com if you bear a full dose.
    Be warned though that he is one of the saner writers there, apart from Anthony ‘Theodore Dalrymple’ Daniels, their tame, intellectual misanthrope.

  6. Paris Lord

    Always a joy to read you, Guy. Wish you were on Twitter, along with Zut Alors and Klewso. Maybe you all are.

  7. klewso

    Glad Guy’s doin’ this community service …… I’d feel so dirty.

    1. Dog's Breakfast

      Yep. Go and have a shower Guy.

      Glad someone is keeping track of the lunatics. They have a capacity to completely misrepresent an argument and then use a non-sequitur as their refutation. Speaking of which, see the first comment to this piece.

      1. Roger Clifton

        Not at all, Dogs Breakfast. I was being tactful. Terry McCrann is quite right. Anyone who believes that an intermittent power supply can supply 100% of demand has rocks in the head. Sitting in the dark and contemplating the loss of industrial society would indeed take us back to the eighteenth century.

        For that matter, the cost of batteries to convert intermittent power to baseload is insanely high. Impossible, that is, except to those who are hopelessly deluded. So I, for one, am grateful that Terry McCrann is out there, keeping track of the lunatics.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...