Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2022 12:15:54 GMT
It is complicated, yes. But I am speaking from an old school variety of authority that encompasses tradition and respect as well as honour and compassion. I'm a Pagan, as you probably know, and we hold elder wisdom and authority in high regard provided it sticks to these aspects.
What you describe there as a force for mind bend is the problem. That has crept into many of the folkways and many native people have been very concerned about it. They now have little control over the perils into which their offspring can fall because they hear all sorts of bull and lots of encouragement to disobey for the sake of it, rebel to get attention and act like a twonk because the establishment authorities will back them up.
I think the chucking of tomato soup on gallery paintings and the pouring of excrement over statues, etc plus the gluing of backsides to various platforms and the idiot attitude to oil are some of the things that authority approves of because it keeps saying "rules are there to be broken". "Your ancestors are irrelevant", etc.
It has created a void in these people that the establishment dogma fills with false approval. I really hate this. It's evil. It's a form of youth abuse. And as the youth are the future of any group, it's also a form of folk abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Oct 21, 2022 12:18:10 GMT
my ancestors are just dead people
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 23, 2022 18:07:05 GMT
"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?"
Marcus Tullius Cicero
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 23, 2022 19:26:59 GMT
Because of the internet its far easier to debate, petition and form parties.
The future of politics needs to become more grass roots, with power closer to the voter with governments firmly under the understanding that they are servants, not masters.
|
|
|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 24, 2022 18:55:34 GMT
Indoctrination can be quite subtle - if you tell children that every problem they might encounter can only be resolved by authority, they will tend to take that subtle message to heart and are quite likely to expect a totalitarian society when they are adults. A very fair point although as you intimate, not universal. I was brought up by strict, disciplinarian parents. My father was a senior police officer and my mother was an ex-police officer. The net result is someone who is passionately anti-authoritarian.  I remember you. Are you Cartertonian the user who occasionally graced PoFo.org and hated the Tories as much as me? Great to see you on here. It took a while but the Clown Johnson is gone thank god. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Oct 25, 2022 8:07:13 GMT
Yep, tis I... Good to see you here. For clarity, I've got a fair amount of time for genuine, compassionate One Nation Tories but the people I 'hate' are the sociopathic, libertarian right-wingnuts who have been steadily taking over the Conservative party since before Brexit. For further clarity, it's hardcore ideologues I 'hate', from whichever party they come. In the context of this thread therefore, the issue is one of how we prevent hardcore ideologues from staging these takeovers. By definition, these ideologues are a minority of the parties whose colours they hide behind and since our electoral system allows parties with minority support in the country to gain a majority of seats and a monopoly on power, governments that succumb to the malign influence of their own ideologues are therefore allowing a tiny minority to impose their will on the majority. I could see the same happening to Labour when they get back in office. They will govern sensibly for their first term but even during that period their own hardcore socialists will be plotting and positioning to push the party further left in any subsequent term. The future of politics depends on breaking this cycle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2022 8:35:51 GMT
How are you going to break it, Carty?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 25, 2022 9:16:10 GMT
For clarity, I've got a fair amount of time for genuine, compassionate One Nation Tories but the people I 'hate' are the sociopathic, libertarian right-wingnuts who have been steadily taking over the Conservative party since before Brexit. I think the idea that the conservative party has been recently hijacked by libertarians is quite odd - the party has moving steadily in the opposite direction for some time. A libertarian stance is probably the Conservative party's last strand of legitimacy and i would certainly welcome such a hijacking as its only likely route to continued relevance. Standing up for the bureaucracy is not likely to pay dividends for them. The socialists are so much better at that. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Oct 25, 2022 11:08:01 GMT
How are you going to break it, Carty? Fairly obviously, I'm not. Let's highlight an elephant in the room... as far as I and many people are concerned, government should be for all the people, not merely for the narrow clique who blindly support any given party (the sort who would vote for a donkey if it had their preferred colour of rosette on it). If government should be for all the people (and some here may demur) then it should be representative of the people...and proportionately so. As I said before, our current system allows parties enjoying minority support in the country to gain majority control of parliament and total control over government. That has to end. The only way I can see of achieving that is to look to electoral reform. This is unlikely to immediately improve the situation as many people will still vote tribally, but once they come to appreciate that their vote can lead to a representative they can support, that tribalism will diminish. Thereafter, parliamentary reform is required. I don't support an elected upper chamber because that would lead to the same legislative gridlock we can see in the US, but it does need reform. Also, the whips offices should be disbanded and members should vote with their consciences and their constituencies in mind, rather than serving as tools to force through ideological nonsense (of whichever party). In short, we need a system that precludes any one minority group from imposing its will on the majority. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2022 13:12:51 GMT
Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2022 5:21:54 GMT
Okay, new PM. Same promises to do this and that. How long will Rishi manage to last? He does have financial credentials and is a Fullbright scholar. Not a lawyer, thankfully, as lawyers have come to dominate politics and I see them as too crafty to rule nations. Nations need administrator's who know what not to interfere in and how to do the job for which they have been elected. They also need to be blind to everything and everyone except what justice demands in a democracy. (So stick that in your pipe an smoke it, Biden, who can think only of Rishi's race.)
I wish Rishi good luck as he is going to need it. He will be set upon from day one. I thought he should have got the job and not Truss. So now he has it. Here's hoping ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 27, 2022 10:23:08 GMT
How are you going to break it, Carty? Fairly obviously, I'm not. Let's highlight an elephant in the room... as far as I and many people are concerned, government should be for all the people, not merely for the narrow clique who blindly support any given party (the sort who would vote for a donkey if it had their preferred colour of rosette on it). If government should be for all the people (and some here may demur) then it should be representative of the people...and proportionately so. As I said before, our current system allows parties enjoying minority support in the country to gain majority control of parliament and total control over government. That has to end. The only way I can see of achieving that is to look to electoral reform. This is unlikely to immediately improve the situation as many people will still vote tribally, but once they come to appreciate that their vote can lead to a representative they can support, that tribalism will diminish. Thereafter, parliamentary reform is required. I don't support an elected upper chamber because that would lead to the same legislative gridlock we can see in the US, but it does need reform. Also, the whips offices should be disbanded and members should vote with their consciences and their constituencies in mind, rather than serving as tools to force through ideological nonsense (of whichever party). In short, we need a system that precludes any one minority group from imposing its will on the majority. The people can't be trusted. The fracking business for example - it is safe but they have been lied to about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Oct 28, 2022 12:33:26 GMT
BvL wrote: This is the other elephant in the room. I wouldn't describe it as a 'problem' with democracy, but rather a 'reality'. If we do indeed want a democracy, then limiting the franchise in any way reduces its veracity as a democracy. Is it any wonder the left screech about 'patriarchy' when most of our parliamentary principles and traditions originated in a time when the franchise was limited to white men with some measurable social capital? On the other hand, opening up the franchise to more or less everyone means that all genders can vote, all races and ethnicities can vote, settled immigrants can vote, the donkey-jacket and brazier types who believe everything they read in the Mirror can vote, the status dog and football shirt types who believe everything they read in the Sun can vote, the twin-set and pearls types who believe everything they read in the Mail can an vote, the Faragian right who believe everything they read in the Telegraph can vote, the Gordon Gecko types who believe everything they read in the FT can vote and so on. Which of those 'can't be trusted'? I'd say a significant majority of each. I'm not sure how one squares the circle. As an educationalist, I might say that voting should be restricted to those who have taken and passed a political awareness exam, but that would be authoritarian and contrary to my own principles. Furthermore, it seems obvious to me that even those who should be expected to understand politics, don't. Take the furore over whether or not Rishi Sunak has a mandate? He doesn't need one. The 2019 mandate was won by the Conservative Party, not Boris Johnson personally. Therefore who actually leads the Conservative Party at any given time is irrelevant. This serves to illustrate my own personal aphorism, that 'politics' is the Sales & Marketing Division' of 'governance'. My interpretation of the current furore is that most if not all of the opposition (and a few rogue Tory backbenchers) know full well that it was the party that won the mandate, not the person, but for 'political' reasons they are seeking to spin the lie that the Tories have no mandate, to whip up more fervour in the electorate for a GE. I'd love a GE. This period of Tory rule has run its course. But to be accurate, they do (regrettably perhaps) still have a mandate. Truss's mistake was to deviate so dramatically from that mandate and Sunak insists he is returning to it...although let's remember that's a political statement rather than a commitment of governance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 17:01:56 GMT
Because of the internet its far easier to debate, petition and form parties. The future of politics needs to become more grass roots, with power closer to the voter with governments firmly under the understanding that they are servants, not masters. Moving toward direct democracy would be a suggestion, but the demographics will pose a problem because it will be majority rule. The utopian dictatorship won't allow it and I can't see the Lords and career politicians having any of it. The best you can hope for are more vigorous laws that hold them to account, but what politician in a representative democracy would vote for that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Oct 28, 2022 17:12:37 GMT
BvL wrote: This is the other elephant in the room. I wouldn't describe it as a 'problem' with democracy, but rather a 'reality'. If we do indeed want a democracy, then limiting the franchise in any way reduces its veracity as a democracy. Is it any wonder the left screech about 'patriarchy' when most of our parliamentary principles and traditions originated in a time when the franchise was limited to white men with some measurable social capital? On the other hand, opening up the franchise to more or less everyone means that all genders can vote, all races and ethnicities can vote, settled immigrants can vote, the donkey-jacket and brazier types who believe everything they read in the Mirror can vote, the status dog and football shirt types who believe everything they read in the Sun can vote, the twin-set and pearls types who believe everything they read in the Mail can an vote, the Faragian right who believe everything they read in the Telegraph can vote, the Gordon Gecko types who believe everything they read in the FT can vote and so on. Which of those 'can't be trusted'? I'd say a significant majority of each. I'm not sure how one squares the circle. As an educationalist, I might say that voting should be restricted to those who have taken and passed a political awareness exam, but that would be authoritarian and contrary to my own principles. Furthermore, it seems obvious to me that even those who should be expected to understand politics, don't. Take the furore over whether or not Rishi Sunak has a mandate? He doesn't need one. The 2019 mandate was won by the Conservative Party, not Boris Johnson personally. Therefore who actually leads the Conservative Party at any given time is irrelevant. This serves to illustrate my own personal aphorism, that 'politics' is the Sales & Marketing Division' of 'governance'. My interpretation of the current furore is that most if not all of the opposition (and a few rogue Tory backbenchers) know full well that it was the party that won the mandate, not the person, but for 'political' reasons they are seeking to spin the lie that the Tories have no mandate, to whip up more fervour in the electorate for a GE. I'd love a GE. This period of Tory rule has run its course. But to be accurate, they do (regrettably perhaps) still have a mandate. Truss's mistake was to deviate so dramatically from that mandate and Sunak insists he is returning to it...although let's remember that's a political statement rather than a commitment of governance. I think I should qualify by way of my criticism of politics and politicians in this country.....and any other country for that matter. Politicians are responsible for how a country and even the world are run; The results are obvious. |
|
