Moderator: Peak Moderation
I don't agree. I think it was a movement waiting to happen. Sooner or later it would have found a vehicle. Corbyn's Labour is England's version of the SNP.kenneal - lagger wrote:Corbyn is a threat as well because there would have been no movement without Corbyn to stimulate it.
UndercoverElephant wrote:I don't agree. I think it was a movement waiting to happen. Sooner or later it would have found a vehicle. Corbyn's Labour is England's version of the SNP.kenneal - lagger wrote:Corbyn is a threat as well because there would have been no movement without Corbyn to stimulate it.
Anyway...the point is that I don't think the movement can be stopped now by cutting off its head.
True.I don't agree. I think it was a movement waiting to happen.
Not quite, perhaps resembling something from it's, the SNP that is, beginnings, but there'a lot of leapfrogging to be done, besides...Scotland is in climax ferment (already independent bar that rubber stamps and a bit of theatre). Something you never quite grasped with the referendum vote.Labour is England's version of the SNP.
True, decapitation would send the entire country into flux, however...wounded animals react desperately, an amnesty needs tabled, which is why JC is who he is, the entire country needs to have a think to itself, believe it or not this man could well be the catalyst for the beginnings of world peace, Naive(?)..maybe, but the alternative is utter carnage-leading to certain collective annihilation, he's no wallflower or intellectual slouch...I don't think the movement can be stopped now by cutting off its head
I could argue with this, but I do not want to re-open the bitter divisions that opened up during the referendum campaign.peaceful_life wrote:Not quite, perhaps resembling something from it's, the SNP that is, beginnings, but there'a lot of leapfrogging to be done, besides...Scotland is in climax ferment (already independent bar that rubber stamps and a bit of theatre). Something you never quite grasped with the referendum vote.Labour is England's version of the SNP.
Yes, I think that's a bit naive. I'd agree to the extent that many of his foreign policy proposals are at least attempting to be as constructive as possible (as opposed to the current/mainstream western policies, which are frequently ill-conceived and counterproductive). Where I disagree is about the limits to what is possible even with somebody like Corbyn talking sense and trying to be constructive. I also don't agree that the alternative is certain collective anihiliation. I'm afraid we are heading towards something more like survival of the fittest, on a societal/national level, where those groups who survive do so at the expense of others. IMO the real choice is between that and collective anihililation....believe it or not this man could well be the catalyst for the beginnings of world peace, Naive(?)..maybe, but the alternative is utter carnage-leading to certain collective annihilation, he's no wallflower or intellectual slouch...
There's certainly no bitterness held by myself, things are what they are, we either understand them, or we don't, please...feel free to reopen a analysis on the dynamic of the body politic, it's entirely pertinent. I put the word 'independent' in italics to highlight that there can be no such thing, when we start from a myth all we're left with is a paradox, nothing is independent, science now knows it and lore has always known it, which leads us on to the fatal misreading of ideological Darwinism and the myth of 'survival of the fittest' , which is just an extension of the idea of dominion. An attempt to emulate the snapshot of the Lion being lord of all it encounters is seductive, but it doesn't account for the fact that the Lion cannot exist without the myriad lifeforms of the soil (of which we know virtually nothing) wich feed the plants-that feed the animals-that feed the Lion. The same soil holds humidity and carbon, currently being released (as you know) at catastrophic rates and effecting the entire biospherical system, from which, no nation can be granted exclusion and if left to it's own systemic conclusion, without intervention of regeneration, it will indeed annihilate every single one of us, yes...we [insert name of nation] might well extend a very temporary existence, but no matter what we'll still need to be getting on with regeneration anyway, it's physics and it simply doesn't debate with us, we either get in-line with it, or kiss our arses good bye.UndercoverElephant wrote:I could argue with this, but I do not want to re-open the bitter divisions that opened up during the referendum campaign.peaceful_life wrote:Not quite, perhaps resembling something from it's, the SNP that is, beginnings, but there'a lot of leapfrogging to be done, besides...Scotland is in climax ferment (already independent bar that rubber stamps and a bit of theatre). Something you never quite grasped with the referendum vote.Labour is England's version of the SNP.
Yes, I think that's a bit naive. I'd agree to the extent that many of his foreign policy proposals are at least attempting to be as constructive as possible (as opposed to the current/mainstream western policies, which are frequently ill-conceived and counterproductive). Where I disagree is about the limits to what is possible even with somebody like Corbyn talking sense and trying to be constructive. I also don't agree that the alternative is certain collective anihiliation. I'm afraid we are heading towards something more like survival of the fittest, on a societal/national level, where those groups who survive do so at the expense of others. IMO the real choice is between that and collective anihililation....believe it or not this man could well be the catalyst for the beginnings of world peace, Naive(?)..maybe, but the alternative is utter carnage-leading to certain collective annihilation, he's no wallflower or intellectual slouch...
That is a completely false characterisation of Darwinism. Whilst I cannot speak with certainty for anyone from a non-scientific background, the principles of Darwinism most certainly do not lead me to such a facile reading of it. Nor, I very strongly suspect, do they lead UE to it either. Survival of the fittest is about being best fitted. Which, of course, may sometimes mean being the strongest. But, it also can mean many other things as well.peaceful_life wrote:
.....when we start from a myth all we're left with is a paradox, nothing is independent, science now knows it and lore has always known it, which leads us on to the fatal misreading of ideological Darwinism and the myth of 'survival of the fittest' , which is just an extension of the idea of dominion.
Yes, we know this (at least on this board) What, precisely, has this got to do with, amongst other things, committing national suicide by allowing utterly unsustainable numbers of people into this country which is, I suspect, the implication being made? Though, I am happy to stand corrected if wrong. You appear to be doing little more than just taking a particular humanist perspective and trying to clumsily stitch it onto an ecological analysis and, frankly, the stitches are showing, as evidenced by the following:....the Lion cannot exist without the myriad lifeforms of the soil (of which we know virtually nothing) wich feed the plants-that feed the animals-that feed the Lion....
Again, yes, of course we are aware (on this board) of the very real danger of a runaway greenhouse process that could end up with the end of all large, complex life forms on earth. However, we don't know with certainty if this will be the severity of the final outcome of the current warming process. Given that, there is nothing to be gained whatsoever in pointlessly spreading and multiplying the human catastrophe that is unfolding as a consequence of this process of warming (alongside other ecological desecrations of the Earth). In other words, I am suggesting that the damage is already baked into the cake. That being the case, all any nation can do is baton down the hatches in preparation for the storm to come and, alongside what mitigating measures may be taken to minimise the warming to come (which, frankly, are probably far too little too late), hope that they may weather this storm in the full and certain knowledge that many others may not.The same soil holds humidity and carbon, currently being released (as you know) at catastrophic rates and effecting the entire biospherical system, from which, no nation can be granted exclusion and if left to it's own systemic conclusion, without intervention of regeneration, it will indeed annihilate every single one of us, yes...we [insert name of nation] might well extend a very temporary existence, but no matter what we'll still need to be getting on with regeneration anyway, it's physics and it simply doesn't debate with us, we either get in-line with it, or kiss our arses good bye
More of the same. That is to say, more humanist stuff without any real connection the the very real, very current and very pragmatic issue of hundreds of thousands of people (which will turn to millions and then hundreds of millions, in due course) with nowhere to go in this world because there is nowhere for them to go. That is the cold, hard brutal truth of it and there is a hell of a lot more brutality to come whether you (or I) like it or not.Herbet Spencer would've done well to realise the fitness in comprehending just how the collective organism works and extrapolate some enlightened self interest from that, coz it turns out that might wasn't so right after all and using it as a tool for survival will merely exacerbate it's consequences, the evidence is laid before us all to see and the limits of the possible are moot, we've gotta do the impossible with reality, what ever that is. Nothing is independent, naivety(?), or reality(?), either way, things are what they are.
That's beyond "far-fetched". I think the British Army understands and recognises its proper place in the unwritten constitution of this country. The modern army came into existence, after all, during the time of Oliver Cromwell - during the most important overthrow of The Establishment in British history. Even though many of the officers still come from the upper classes and aristocracy, I cannot imagine anything like this happening in this country.AutomaticEarth wrote:Probably a bit far-fetched, but it's interesting that such a thought has entered someone's head:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09742.html
Rubbish. This isn't about "Corbyn". It is about Parliament. If Parliament voted to scrap Trident and the army somehow refused to accept this, or tried to bring down Corbyn, then it would cause the biggest constitutional crisis in the UK since the end of the Civil War.The unnamed general said members of the armed forces would begin directly and publicly challenging the labour leader if he tried to scrap Trident, pull out of Nato or announce “any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces.”
He told the Sunday Times: “The Army just wouldn’t stand for it.
No it isn't. It's a joke.Snail wrote:For a serving general to say this highlights something seriously wrong in this country. Labour and Jeremy corbyn should demand answers asap. First, a danger to national security, now threats of a military coup. This is SERIOUS.
Yes they are upper class, but they are also steeped in the history and culture of the British Armed Forces. The UK is just about the last country in the world where a military coup is likely.The army needs to swear allegiance to parliament or something. But officers are mostly the upper class aren't they.
They don't like Corbyn and McDonnell because of their history/relationship with the IRA, and this their contribution to the attempt to undermine him. It is pure scaremongery. The British armed forces serve Parliament (not the Queen, even if that's what it "says"). They do NOT serve the establishment. We had a war to sort that one out, and it was an extremely unpleasant one. Just to underline the point, we also chopped Charles I's head off for the crime of treason against his own people. The modern army traces its history to the forces that defeated Charles.His shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, was forced to apologise when it was revealed he had called for IRA members, including hunger striker Bobby Sands, to be honoured by the British government.
The general said: “Many soldiers are disgusted by the comments of Corbyn and John McDonnell [about] the IRA — men who have not only murdered British soldiers but also hundreds of members of their own community.”
I also know of at least one Lib Dem (paid up member) who is considering defecting to Labour.A PROMINENT peer is considering defection to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party after “a lifetime” in the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Tonge said she was “thinking about” joining Labour and “a lot of people” in her party were pondering the move as they found Corbyn “a breath of fresh air”.
The former GP, who as Jenny Tonge was MP for Richmond Park, southwest London, said she agreed with Corbyn on benefit cuts, foreign affairs, defence and the environment. She complained that she had not “heard a peep” on policy from Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader.
“I know that lots of Lib Dems are contemplating supporting Jeremy Corbyn, including me,” Tonge said.
We say we want politicians who are open and honest. And then, when we get one, we angrily pelt him with slime until he cringes to the mob, starts hiding his real views, and hires a spin doctor just like all the others.
So don’t let me hear you complaining again that our leaders are too smooth and obsessed with their images.
I loathe and despise most of what Jeremy Corbyn stands for, but a reasonably long life has taught me that quite a lot of people agree with him and not with me.
We say we want politicians who are open and honest. And then, when we get one, we angrily pelt him with slime until he cringes to the mob, starts hiding his real views, and hires a spin doctor just like the others
I think our wonderful laws and constitution thrive because of this difference. Nobody is right all the time. A fierce and principled opposition stops a fat, complacent government from making stupid mistakes.
We all live in that inch or two of difference that ought to exist between the two main parties, but which recently vanished.
And I might add, these freedoms were what the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots saved when they won the Battle of Britain. Some of them may have been unsure about the Monarchy, if they’d had time to think about it. And I wonder how many of the soldiers who slogged doggedly through the Western Desert, Burma, Italy and Normandy were a bit Left-wing, too.
The world’s full of countries where you have to salute the leader and sing the party song in public. This isn’t one of them, so to hell with all the superpatriots who condemned Jeremy Corbyn for not singing God Save The Queen.
What are they patriotic for, exactly, if not the freedom to dissent, the crown of all our liberties and our greatest achievement?
So don’t let me hear you complaining again that our leaders are too smooth and obsessed with their images
And do you really think that the Blairite smoothies, who pretended to be patriots and monarchists, really were? Do you prefer liars to honest men?
I’d much rather have a lone and awkward Jeremy Corbyn, respectfully staying silent during the singing of a song he didn’t agree with, than the ghastly pretence of Anthony Blair’s fake welcome to Downing Street in 1997, when Labour Party workers were bussed into Downing Street and ordered to impersonate a patriotic crowd.
How most of them must have hated waving the Union Jack, a flag such people despise. Yet through such fakery, attacked at the time only by me, Blair came to office and was able to smash up much of our free constitution.
As for the rest of them, I have to note that Mr Rupert Murdoch, owner of the media keenest to harry Mr Corbyn, has pledged his own allegiance to the American Republic and said, in a Sydney lecture in 2008: ‘If I were in a position to vote, it would be for a republic.’
Mr Murdoch, who kept a bust of Lenin in his rooms at Oxford, declared during Australia’s last referendum on the Monarchy: ‘The British Monarchy has become irrelevant to this generation of Australians.’
Which brings me to Malcolm Turnbull, new leader of Australia’s answer to the Tory Party, and another avowed republican. There’s no organic connection between these careerists and our ancient traditions.
As I survey the smarmy, modernising ranks of Mr Cameron’s Blairite rabble, I feel pretty sure that they would abolish the Crown in a moment if they thought it would help them stay in office.
I want Mr Corbyn to lose any Election he fights, but I want him to lose it to people who really disagree with him, not people who pretend to do so.
