advertisement


Winter election III

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Smith was widely admired on all sides, and his untimely death was a loss at many levels.
Peter Oborne doesn't seem to like Boris much:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...stroy-britain-conservative-revolutionary-sect

Last paragraph:

"We have a strong Conservative candidate here in Brentford and Isleworth, a local woman named Seena Shah. I’ve seen her in action and in normal times I’d vote for her. Shah represents hope for the future. But she is much too good for Boris Johnson and the wrecking crew that surrounds him. I believe they want to destroy the Britain I’ve lived in and loved all my life."
Oborne is a weapons grade prat.
 
You're probably right, and certainly that point about Soviet military in Europe does give away that this was from a while ago. Nevertheless, the mistake made in 99% of political comments of whatever shade, absolutely everywhere, is to ignore history, and rant slavishly according to attitudes currently fashionable on "social media". Thus an opinion is deemed to be worth nothing if it has not first been tried on in front of the mirror, to see if the holder likes the view of themselves the opinion appears to imply -- it seems to me that it is literally as shallow as that.

The list was taken from the Declaration of Venice (March, 1962), by the National Party of Europe, as part of its 'Europe, a Nation' initiative under the direction of Sir Oswald Mosley, who was a actual, genuine fascist, and would have been flattered to be called one. With the benefit of some historical perspective, we can therefore conclude that anyone who would support these aims as detailed (and in many cases, now realised) could therefore also be called a fascist (and that's you Ken Clarke, John Major, Michael Heseltine, Sarah Wollaston, Heidi Allen, Tony Blair, Miss Piggy, Kier Ober-Starmer, etc.). You can't really support Moseley's policies and then deny being a fascist.

Thirty years ago, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it was rashly and wrongly assumed that the scourge of Marxism had been expunged, creating a new historical era. In reality of course, the crude, lumbering Soviet model of Marxism, which had become a liability to its supporters, had reached the end of its life, and it was discreetly replaced by the sleeker model that the Frankfurt School had been refining since the 1920s, based not on state control of economies but on the infinitely deadlier subversion and subjugation of culture. Now, after the long march through the institutions, cultural Marxism has occupied most of the commanding heights of British society. Parts of our universities are seminaries of totalitarian intolerance -- the undergraduate revolutionaries of a generation ago are today's senior common room commissars.

That's the root of most of today's problems. Most people know this instinctively, but nobody will admit it because there's no 'visible virtue' in a historical perspective. Instead, the shallow and fashionable notion of 'Diversity' is valued over all else, except of course, Diversity of opinion.

Luckily, there's none of this baggage in voting. Nobody sees how you vote.
So is the current EU fascist or Marxist, or
is it both?
 
Something nobody ever seems to explain - if we do borrow heavily now, not just for investment in genuine infrastructure improvement projects that potentially bring back a return, but for other large ticket non-investment items such as WASPI women (~£58billion +) - when would we plan to pay back these loans to return the debt level even back to where it is now? Interest rates may be at a historical low now, but what happens in future years if rates return to previous levels?
As I understand it the basic idea is that it can be paid off by increased tax revenues. But really it needn't be, since government debt isn't a problem unless people come looking for it all at once, and they'd need a very good reason to do that in the case of a country with a mature economy and a robust tax system, because the interest they collect on it is basically (risk) free money. One of the benefits of investment in relation to debt is that a stronger economy results in greater credibility, making debt still less risky. Labour also plans to invest specifically in the green economy, making the country less dependent on fossil fuel imports, reducing the current account deficit - which again makes us more credible borrowers.

The Tories do plan to borrow, by the way, but not to do any of this: they’re going to borrow for consumption (public sector wages and so on), which makes the country *less* credible.

It’s also worth remembering that a quarter of UK government debt is owed to the government itself (Bank of England) and another half to UK pension firms etc. Only a quarter is owed to international lenders.

This is really helpful:

https://jubileedebt.org.uk/countries-in-crisis/truth-uks-debt

The WASPI thing is a historic wrong that needs to be made right without equivocation or delay. The government is currently being taken to court on the matter and will likely have to pay out anyway, but not before putting the women involved through a lot of costly grief. This is the sort of thing that governments sometimes have to just find the money for, like paying for flood damage or whatever: there’s always a bit of headroom to take account of this sort of possibility. It won’t even be a pure “loss”: unless all the women involved immediately take their cash to the Cayman Islands it will have its own economic benefits.
 
You're probably right, and certainly that point about Soviet military in Europe does give away that this was from a while ago. Nevertheless, the mistake made in 99% of political comments of whatever shade, absolutely everywhere, is to ignore history, and rant slavishly according to attitudes currently fashionable on "social media". Thus an opinion is deemed to be worth nothing if it has not first been tried on in front of the mirror, to see if the holder likes the view of themselves the opinion appears to imply -- it seems to me that it is literally as shallow as that.

The list was taken from the Declaration of Venice (March, 1962), by the National Party of Europe, as part of its 'Europe, a Nation' initiative under the direction of Sir Oswald Mosley, who was a actual, genuine fascist, and would have been flattered to be called one. With the benefit of some historical perspective, we can therefore conclude that anyone who would support these aims as detailed (and in many cases, now realised) could therefore also be called a fascist (and that's you Ken Clarke, John Major, Michael Heseltine, Sarah Wollaston, Heidi Allen, Tony Blair, Miss Piggy, Kier Ober-Starmer, etc.). You can't really support Moseley's policies and then deny being a fascist.

Thirty years ago, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it was rashly and wrongly assumed that the scourge of Marxism had been expunged, creating a new historical era. In reality of course, the crude, lumbering Soviet model of Marxism, which had become a liability to its supporters, had reached the end of its life, and it was discreetly replaced by the sleeker model that the Frankfurt School had been refining since the 1920s, based not on state control of economies but on the infinitely deadlier subversion and subjugation of culture. Now, after the long march through the institutions, cultural Marxism has occupied most of the commanding heights of British society. Parts of our universities are seminaries of totalitarian intolerance -- the undergraduate revolutionaries of a generation ago are today's senior common room commissars.

That's the root of most of today's problems. Most people know this instinctively, but nobody will admit it because there's no 'visible virtue' in a historical perspective. Instead, the shallow and fashionable notion of 'Diversity' is valued over all else, except of course, Diversity of opinion.

Luckily, there's none of this baggage in voting. Nobody sees how you vote.
The Mosley stuff is as weird as ever and if you put it together with the cultural Marxism thing - a straightforward antisemitic trope - you just get...Jesus I don't know what, but it's a bit whiffy. Another thing is: have you ever been in a British university? You might like to look at this fact check thing on the whole no platform moral panic:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45447938

"Diversity of opinion" on campus is under far more serious threat from the government's Prevent strategy than it is from [holds nose] "cultural Marxists", but then that program tends to target Muslims, and represents the kind of suppression of diversity that you favour, as a fan of that dodgy far right "European values" clan:

https://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum...ou-done-part-xxii.207836/page-23#post-3232547

They're all coming out of the woodwork now, I can't help noticing. Getting worried...
 
Pretty wild that the BBC now has to defend her against charges not only of bias but also of actually breaking the law.

Whatever happens tomorrow I think we can all agree that journalism has been the real winner of this election.
 
Yet another useless election called by the useless Conservatives (3d in a row). This one is purely to get rid of the present lot of MPs, whose crime was not cooperating well enough with Mr Johnson and his backers and misunderstanding the phrase “take back control”. So much for the FTPA they passed not so long ago. Why Corbyn indulged BoJo rather than let him stew in his minority juices still puzzles me. I suppose he was low on options, after years spent asking for another GE.

Anyone voting for the Conservatives tomorrow richly deserves the full weight of everything they will get in the coming years. The certainties include a weakened NHS, watered down parliamentary and employment rights, reduced access to the world’s largest free trade area on the doorstep, a toxic trade deal with Trump’s US, etc. Possibilities include a Hard Brexit crash in Dec 2020, more austerity, more industry shifting to the Continent. Events like the reunification of Ireland or Scotland going its own way are not certain, but the fact they are possible shows how far the Conservative and Unionist Party has strayed from its roots.

I just hope other people will forget old grudges, hold their noses and vote for whoever is most likely to keep Johnson and his acolytes away from the feeding trough. Not optimistic, though.

Back to my slumber.
 
And there was I thinking that the root of most of today's problems (in the UK and USA) is regulatory capture, crony capitalism, and the resulting massive inequality in wealth and opportunity.

No, those things are the problems themselves. I was identifying a major cause.
 
There really isn’t a secret cabal of lefty cultural Marxist terrorists hellbent on destroying western society and trampling over christian conservative values — but the more I think about it, there bloody well ought to be.

Never said that, and I'd certainly agree that there isn't. There is no secret and no cabal.
There is just groupthink, identity politics, and approval enslavement.
 
So is the current EU fascist or Marxist, or
is it both?
The current EU, as an institution, has elements of both. This is not that surprising given that those two apparent extremes have more in common with each other than either has with anything else, and from the point of view of the man in the street, probably relatively little to distinguish them once the labels for things are translated.

But cultural Marxism is more about what the citizen is allowed to think than the money in his pocket, or who owns the 'means of production'. "Social media" is a good fit with this, as it allows accumulation of money from other people's voluntary input. The participants are actually the product.
 
This is just out there and way past La La Land. Electoral law quite clearly states that which Kuenssberg did is a criminal offense punishable by up to six months in prison. Kuenssberg has no excuse in trying to claim that "She was merely repeating tittle tattle from sources in both parties". That's no different to repeating a libel and saying "Well they say said," Whoever told her those details, if indeed anyone did" was also breaking electoral law. It is a criminal offense to give any details of any votes cast and their leaning before the conclusion of an election.

The BBC either, throw Kuenssberg under the bus and say "she went rogue" or they are culpable in the commission of a criminal offense. Their PR department has already issued some stupid statement saying "to our knowledge we didn't blah blah" whilst at the same time, the BBC has removed the programme from the Iplayer. If they didn't break the law then why have they done that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top