SEANN ORDUGH FEINNEACHAS ALBANNACH NAN RIDIRE'N TEAMPUILL
AN TEAMPULL DUBH
<It is an eternal verity in the history of mankind that when any structure or institution, in its aspect as a repository for the dedication and aspirations of human beings, becomes disestablished by whatever means, then a residual loyalty and affection will endure upon the foundations of all that has been invested in spiritual and intellectual terms, material outlay notwithstanding.
<To Scottish Patriots, whose key focus remains fixed upon a Nation state which has, to all outward appearances, ceased to exist several hundred years ago, such loyalty and affection are patent assumptions of everday life. Ostensibly destroyed by internal and external enemies in 1707, Scotland is lent a continuing and substantive existence by the nourishment of our ongoing patriotic commitment and constant political vigilance. The sovereign state which was Scotland seems to have ceased to exist, and in significant areas of human structuration it largely has. However, as a beautiful, sacred and eternal concept, Scotland has remained very much alive in the hearts and minds of its patriot devotees with the material reflection of all these poignant human desires about to yield the sweetest fruit known to mankind. We believe in Scotland's hidden powers: the present is theirs, but all the past and all the future is ours.
<Nor is this present humiliating settlement the first occasion on which our people have looked upon the outrage to their country. Between the time of Alexander III and the accession of The Liberator, Robert Bruce, there lived a generation who knew only destruction and loss, an era of unmitigated national grief, the time of the incomparable William Wallace, cornerstone and slaughtered hero whose shining example will live forever in the consciousness of our whole people.
<In reflection of the material ruin of The Scottish Nation, the once proud Knights Templar found themselves defenceless in the face of cruel persecution, deprived of substance or estate and denigrated by the pan-European sovereign office which had once extended them recognition. Scotland and The Order of Templar Knights have shared the experience of eclipse in all the palpable areas which had once denoted their singular marks of uniqueness.
<However, the bright burning concept of Templarism and the perfervid and yet fully rational belief that human spirituality can and does rise above the things of this earth, in order to make even simple sense of our condition as a species; this concept then has survived all the damage that ill-disposed Princes and their patronage could inflict. All the damage inflicted by successively and concomitantly the ascendant Bourgeoisie with their prerequisite pallid, trite and tedious respectabilities, the crass pseudo-intellectualism of the Gauchist revolutionary tendencies, the modern epidemic of materialism and the remorseless passing of generations. Et in arcadia ego. Thus with our ancient, sacred and enduring Scottish nation; the means to kill it has yet to be devised.
<The belief that Templarism has survived in tangible form in Scotland alone, remains a potent and vibrant folkic article of faith. The esoteric tradition which has been built upon that survival, realising in Freemasonry its most vernacular and populist vehicle (though there have also been the shady, secretive and elitist cults which have scarcely broken the surface of common awareness) is evident to those with eyes to see.
<Templarism concerns self-sacrifice and a spirituality which transcends materialist priorities and challenges the assumptions upon which these rest. Templarism owes its survival to its Scottish redoubt, and to an extent, the ancient regime of Scotland owed its existence to Templarism. The new Scotland will be our Temple restored upon these earlier solid foundations and crafted from the same durable masonry. The keystone of our patriotic agenda for the new Scotland will concern the fostering of that sense of spirituality and altruism which is the timeless and priceless heritage of the Order of the Temple.
Previous thread: >>2436922
575 posts and 70 image replies omitted.>>2478589Charles Winsor the German / Norman KKKoloniser paedophile is in the UK every day.
What are you going to do about it?
>>2477883they're called the lumpenproletariat, or as marx says, "the social scum". they contribute to most of antisocial behaviour. fascists, maoists and anarchists alike perceive them to be useful idiots for their cause, as i quote here:
>>2462090>"On the same day, I also had the opportunity to observe along several side streets the lumpenproletariat, which in no way is of the world of abstract ideas, as is the case with the masses. Bakunin was right in regarding the lumpenproletariat as a much more effective revolutionary force."<ernst junger, "on pain", section 10, 1934i otherwise refer to them as peasant remnants of the folk.
>>2479447The point remains, you have a younger generation that doesn't find the jokes funny and boomer comedians are saying
>Well of course it's not funny, YOU won't let me do Blackface!Like actually
>Mitchell and Webb have a tv show, that MUST mean they're funny! It's simply illogical to choose not to laugh.isn't even really the point of the "we're not allowed to make jokes anymore" sketch, it's more an open admission that their new show pales in comparison to That Mitchell and Webb Look but they're blaming the audience.
That's not entertainment, that's not "common sense" on display, that's being a self-victimising pansy that they expect people to watch.
>>2477973I'm open, in an academic sort of way, to conceding some of the I.Q. Obsessives points while retaining a general left-wing political outlook. A lot of things are explained by these people simply being stupid. Not just uneducated, but actively stupid. (Fortunately, that doesn't mean the same thing as conceding "they're worthless", "they're entitled to fewer resources", etc. If anything, I apply a great lump of paternalist "therefore it's not their fault and we need a better system…")
Richard Hanania is a right-wing "former" nazi turned neoliberal anti-Trump type, but he makes interesting points about the US which would seem to generalize to the UK. For example: "Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV" (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-read-conservatives-watch ) or "Elite human capital is always liberal" (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/listen-to-the-science-conservatives - specifically, that economic and social conservatism are only loosely correlated worldwide. Smart people tend to be economic and social liberals. ) or, how modern conservatism is a low-status oppositional culture (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/conservatism-as-an-oppositional-culture )
His best part, and perhaps his most generalisable lesson, is what happened at the last election: High I.Q. tech-bro types went over to Trump, and he thought they'd drag Trump in a smarter direction… nope, Trump and his idiot base dragged them down to their level. (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-only-censor-musk-seeks-to ) This is what happens in the UK: An Oxford educated cunt probably doesn't have a below-average I.Q., but he'll act as though he does because that's the direction his coalition is pulled to pander to. On the flip side, Labour is made up of at-least-midwit academic types. Dressing things up in outdated class-based stereotypes (he went to uni, he must be a lib-dem or Tory!! the real working class can't read!) is just one more right-wing strategy to play on the neuroticism of the left.
You can proxy I.Q. to education for the most part (this is more comfortable for lefties provided they can remind themselves that going to university nowadays just means you're young, not that you're middle class) and another chunk of it goes to age, but as that picture shows, there are a lot of young-ish wankers out there. If you're thinking "how can we win them over" instead of "How can we build a coalition of everyone who thinks they're a gaggle of wanker idiots", you're probably going down a sub-par track. (You can't win them over, you're on an imageboard where we swap walls of text, you're precisely the wrong type to do it.)
tl;dr look at party vote by education level, remember we've massively expanded access to uni for younger people of all incomes, and note how uneducated people vote for bad parties. then remember that since uni access has been expanded, the ratio of "doesn't go to uni because they're too poor" to "doesn't go to uni because they're too thick", which used to be tilted all the way to the former, is now much more to the latter.
>>2479435The 'dogpiling' is what really offends their sensibilities. Don't you know they're a famous British comedian? You should be kissing the ground the walk on, celebrating all those brilliant bits they came up with when they were avant-garde, not reminding them that their best work is older than the average MP and that every day they continue to live tarnishes their legacy further.
>>2479458The media establishment is a challenge any good comedian would set themselves up against. Half the fun of a risque joke is "how did they get away with that?!", being a big crybaby about it is just embarrassing. It would be embarrassing to cry that you couldn't show sweary-shagging on BBC1 in 1982 and it's embarrassing to cry that you can't poke fun at contemporary social norms in 2025. It's your job! Get to it! If you couldn't come up with Sneed's Feed and Seed, you shouldn't be hoovering up license payer money!
>>2479484Just as a glib example: Labour lost very badly in 2019. The entire establishment was set up against them. It's hard to overstate how tipped the scales were - even some predictors like "liberals read more" break down because all the newspapers were printing lies. So, How would the election have gone if we'd only counted the votes of people with degrees?
A Labour landslide with vote shares basically matching what Blair got in 1997: 43% Labour, 17% Lib Dem, 29% Tory.
And if only people with a GCSE or less could vote? 58% Tory, 25% Labour, 8% Lib Dem. The closest analogy would be the National Government of 1931.
Saying that the people who voted for Boris Johnson were just idiots is a very vulgar #FBPE thing to say, but it's true! The counterintuitive thing is that the demographic you'd imagine to be anti-Corbyn #FBPE wankers
overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn, it's true they also voted Lib-Dem disproportionately, but you've got to remember a huge amount of press energy was dedicated to propagandizing these people against Corbyn
and it failed. The main people who fell for the propaganda were
uneducated, and it's not a massive leap - especially cross-referencing with age, which is also a strong predictor of who you'll vote for - to say that this is because they
are stupid.
That's something worth keeping in mind for any political strategy. You're not going to win over smart people with tactics that appeal to idiots and you're not going to win over idiots with tactics that appeal to smart people. Given the general structure of the media environment, it's much easier to win over smart people capable of independent thinking than it is to win over idiots who'll do what BBC News tells them.
>>24795181. There's no such thing as the average person.
2. This is a grotesquely unequal country, whoever you're talking to is subject to massive selection bias (and your impression of their intelligence is obviously influenced by your intelligence. To a moron, the idiot is king. To a genius, the smart guy is a moron.)
3. Idiots are capable of being creative or skillful. Being an idiot doesn't make you worthless, but it is very strongly correlated with having bad politics, particularly socially conservative politics.
Explain why a person would vote for someone like Trump or Farage (both grifters who love to exploit their own bases in a way even Starmer would never dream of - you don't see him flogging gold scams) with more predictive power than "because they're an idiot, attracted to a grifter who is appealing to idiots"
>>2479649This is a convenient and partially true explanation, but it cannot explain why degree holders overwhelmingly voted Labour in 2019. Smarter people read more, so they should have seen
more anti-Labour propaganda than someone who finds reading to be a chore and just watches TV. Yet despite this extra dose of anti-Corbyn propaganda, they overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn.
(The class position of Reform voters is basically incidental in my theory: I have no qualms with the idea that the petit bourgeoisie are idiots.)
>>2479443>entitled to laughsThe argument is whether you're allowed to make the joke in the first place, not that the audience must be compelled to laugh.
You're not entitled to have your gay sense of humour catered to.
>>2480508>not that the audience must be compelled to laugh.You're an idiot if you think it was overnight that comedians started claiming you can't "make jokes anymore". No one is saying you can't make jokes any more because Ricky Gervais got thrown in prison suddenly under new legislation, it was because there were criticisms of jokes that target, for example, trans people and comedians started kicking off that the targets of punching downwards were openly criticising the joke rather than just slinking off to cry in the bathroom like the good old days and that resulted in sympathy rather than laughs.
But tbh the right-wing free-speech advocates brought this on themselves, the thing about that IT Crowd episode with the trans woman for example, that was fine in an atmosphere where no one knew anything about trans people and as far as anyone knew it was as simple as a medical procedure to cut their knackers off and from then on they were as happy as riley and live an otherwise normal job (like being a journalist in that episode), so an episode being like "but they're still a man really, aren't they?" wasn't going to hit a sore spot for most.
But thanks to the right-wing, we know a lot more about trans people now, that actually their situation is not as carefree and immune to humiliation as once thought, there are in fact a significant number of people that do not just claim they're "men really" but "paedophiles really" and "rapists really", so a really over-the-top fight scene is not going to be viewed as "haha she still has her masculine strength" but rather that's being the visual manifestation of what Linehan at the very least wants to see but likely that of his supporters and that's not very funny now, is it?
Basically, if you make this or that person public enemy no. 1, then you forgo the ability to make jokes about them because you've forced the public to pick sides. People who agree trans people are all paedos aren't looking for light hearted jokes, they're looking for messages and rallying cries cruelly expressed. People who disagree are going to see the joke as providing said messages and rallying cries.
Perhaps if the right could wind their necks in once in a while, then there could be the "capacity for jokes" once more.
>>2480540You're right and the other thing is that these people all have their own untouchable subjects. They're really upset that you can't joke about transgender people anymore, but 95% of them would go "what the fuck did you expect?" if you caught flak for joking about October 7th or the recent death of Charlie Kirk or some other subject where, in the inner circle, it's painfully obvious you're violating a social taboo. The problem isn't that you can't do offensive jokes, it's that you can't do jokes that are inoffensive to them but offensive to someone else.
It's telling that Chris Morris is (a) a weirdo recluse (b) actually funny, and (c) never seen bitching about cancel culture. (And he's got a good case for doing it after the newspaper response to Paedogeddon or, to a lesser degree, all those angry yank letters from him taking the piss out of 9/11 in
2002. No, no, no, comedians should only slaughter
your sacred cows. Mine are
sacred!)
>>2480555Absolutely, there's a scene in The Young Ones from around 1981 I think, with a police officer wearing sunglasses (so presumably seeing everything in a darker shade) stops a white person and unleashes a barrage of racism including words we just wouldn't have on the BBC anymore, naturally that scene is cut out of repeats of the show and naturally we're conditioned to think that's solely for the benefit of people who can't tolerate hearing slurs
even as part of a joke at the expense of police officers.
I guarantee though, if they broadcast the episode with the scene intact, the right will be kicking off the loudest about the utter woke nonsense of suggesting the British police are prone to racists joining their ranks, that actually PC has gone so mad you're not even allowed to freely banter with the suspect as the arresting officer anymore! Just because occasionally that has taken a slightly risque turn about their race..
>>2480623reminder that the pensioner subsidy isn't the state pension (which is mediocre by european standards), it's that pension income and income from landlordism aren't subject to national insurance. they're paying too little tax rather than getting too much in handouts.
(this is why so many pensioners are in poverty, yet at the same time so many are raking it in.)
Unique IPs: 23