Almost forgot: death to the bourgeoisie
>>2649904in a perverse sense, this makes me optimistic. at a certain point, all the middle-managers and administrative figures have to realize their political overseers have gone completely and utterly insane.
i shouldn't be so naive, and yet…
>>2649904>he didn't apologisebased pig
labour consider social media ban for under-16s:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k9z535e08olabour bans porn, bans twitter, bans 4chan, bans AI, bans social media…
we ought to be a utopia after all these cleansings!
>>2649937The only thing the Stazi Arsewaffen won't ban are the jews
>>2649940
Brexit is historically irrelevant
>>2649937>bans AIthey're giving billions to any bourg who says they're making an LLM
>>2649940>>2649943brexit only lead the way to being dominated by the US even more, while also allowing the highest net immigration in the UK for its entire history (due to repealing EU regulations and adopting a new points system), unwarrantingly fuelling reactionary sentiment amidst a cost of living crisis, irrevocably harming civic unity in the nation. the 2016 referendum itself was a farce filled with lies about harmful "regulations" oppressing the UK, with the ring master, nigel farage, saying that brexit would save the NHS. afterwards, this man plainly denied his previous claims on television, pretending to know nothing about what was alleged by his own side. after this, he hid away until 2020, where he did some news presenting on GB news, then went to cameo, and now has a new party, filled with the old ex-tory traitors who have caused the very thing nigel is purported to wanting to reverse.
>>2649983the boriswave is world-historically funny.
perhaps the three funniest charts-with-labels in recent history are:
1. the 2017 election polling graphs, with a vertical line showing when the election was called and labour support immediately spiked
2. net migration graph with a line showing when the UK replaced its EU-era immigration system with an "australian style" points based system
3. the chart showing public support for ID cards, with a vertical line showing when starmer announced he was introducing ID cards - only for the polls to then flip and show public opposition.
>>2649937its a good thing but done with bad intentions by bad people
>>2650052I've heard from other sources this is mostly bullshit and overblown - the study that concludes this is literally one commissioned by an evangelical church and its more 'gen-z are the biggest generation to return to church, post-covid, who where already religious' and its primarily because of the social aspect/dating aspect.
No new signups, is what I mean. Of course its represented like this by right wing shitrags to create a distorted narrative.
>>2650052
>immigration increasing >religion increasing Yup.
>>2650052This has been debunked.
At least, religion is still in steady decline amongst both white Brits and ethnic minorities who have been here multiple generations.
Any slow down in religious decline is not due to conversion but rather to Eastern European, African and Asian first generation immigrants having large families. If current trends hold their grandchildren will be irreligious in time.
There are a handful of chuds who LARP as traditional Catholic/Orthodox Christian but not enough to appear in statistics.
>>2649983>If only we had stayed in then immigration would be okay right nowyou understand they are coming over from France?
>>2650095>in due timeWe're already living it sister
>>2650126>they are coming from francemany of the asylum seekers, yes
but most net immigrants are legal, by work visa or student visa
there was controversy under blair when eastern european plumbers came down on work visas, but its nothing compared to now. remember also, the number of non-EU members which come here, which is only possible cos we left the union.
>>2650136Visa workers are controlled and can be told to leave, a la Australia, illegal migrants are here forever and god only knows what cultural shite they bring with them
>>2650166>Visa workers are controlled and can be told to leaveyes. iirc boris johnson lowered the visa salary to allow for lower skilled labour, so you can effectively reverse this by outpricing labour
>illegal migrants are here foreverwhy do you say so? if you dont have citizenship and no rightful claim to stay, then you will be deported. course, its theory and practice, but if you get competence in law enforcement, anythings possible.
>>2650159its not trump who wants greenland, its the oil company execs he meets up with
>>2650185>then you will be deported.and how many have been? 4?
And how much did the lawyers make from that little number?
>>2650190Trust me bro, I'm the 'tard whisperer. The only reason he has got a full champ o the go for this project is because he thinks 'all that land sitting there doing nothing'
>>2650194"WOW that's like half of the land on Earth"
>>2650191>Government removes highest number of illegal migrants in 5 years<The government's target to drive removal of foreign criminals and immigration offenders to highest level since 2018 has been smashed, with 16,400 people removed.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-removes-highest-number-of-illegal-migrants-in-5-yearsi believe over half of asylum claims are denied too, but an issue is that re-application can be a process that clogs up the system. backlogs and all the rest.
immigration is good, it's britain's economy that sucks.
"economy" is an abstract term but specifically: we have too many pointless, parasitic, low-productivity industries. remember, there are teams of people who's job it is to argue who has to pay for your delay repay when a train hits a bird and has to be cancelled. (bird that lives in trees? network rail's fault for not cutting the trees, bird that doesn't live on trees? act of god, rail operator's fault…). people collect money for running privatized water companies that seem to exist only to generate work for the bad-headlines team at the BBC and for lobbyists to demand the government give them more money so they can generate more bad headlines and more lobbyists.
money, physical infrastructure, management, and general stuff is poured into this pointless nonsense instead of creating something of value - even something like real financial game playing. instead of productive billionaire slush-fund managers, we've got an entire strata of people who'll help you game our baroque tax system. (why, once again, does national insurance exist! for what purpose is there a second tier of income tax that exempts pensioners and landlords!?) you don't fix anything until they're (temporarily) unemployed and then redeployed to something better.
the government live under the delusion that any job with a good salary is "a good job" and a net economic benefit.
nonsense, some of the highest paid people in the country today are actively harmful to the long-term tax take and economic prospects of the country because they're engaged in total bollocks. their employer should be shuttered and their arse should be on the dole until such time as something new and productive is brought in for them to do.
the job of this government, really, should've been to re-work things to encourage this transition. it has failed dismally, supporting the status quo instead of subtly dismantling it. this isn't some radical analysis: it's what basically any mainstream economist will tell you. britain is, quite literally, an unproductive country.
>>2650203why is the left-wing of capital better at being anti immigration?
>>2650212i take it as being a matter of form and content
>>2650205>we have too many pointless, parasitic, low-productivity… industries. ah, right.
>the government live under the delusion that any job with a good salary is "a good job" and a net economic benefit. its called GDP. more money means more gooder.
>nonsense, some of the highest paid people in the country today are actively harmful to the long-term tax take and economic prospects of the country because they're engaged in total bollocks.yes, its called "unproductive labour", a category of classical economics
>britain is, quite literally, an unproductive country.i showed it a while ago, but the UK is one of the slowest growing economies in the west, with wages that have stagnated for almost 2 decades.
Can somebody explain to me why I should care about electoralism at all? Why should I vote for the Greens or Your Party if I live in a solidly Hitlerian Reform UK supporting constituency and if reformism achieves nothing of value in any case?
>>2650227for clarity: when i say "industries" i mean broadly: e.g. including "the insurance industry", "the politician-lobbying industry", whatever. not industry in the simcity sense of "the factories that manufacture things and pollution"
>>2650233it costs nothing, it's cheap entertainment, like the BBC (assuming you don't pay the license fee - you don't, right?)
>>2650239BBC has never seen a penny from me :)
>>2650233You shouldn't. Join the Friends of the Filipino People in Struggle.
>>2650269Just looked them up. Seems the NPA is listed as a terrorist organisation by the USA, EU and Japan but not by the UK? Same as the PFLP iirc.
Surprised neither the Tories nor Labour have proscribed them yet. But it looks like they're not able to run a YouTube or Xitter without it getting immediately suspended tho.
think waxing your worm would be rather painful tbqh…
>>2650203They don't have the first clue how many are here, and they just float back over on the next dinghy even if they get deported
>>2650580what would you do if you were in charge?
>>2650426Hairy dicks are gross though
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl8n7zw0wkoThe latest BBC article on Jenrick's defection. They actually include the following choice quote from his speech with Farage:
<He said the "final straw" was at a shadow cabinet away day around a week ago, when there was a discussion about whether Britain was broken, with the party's position that it was not.
<Jenrick said some people in the room argued "Britain is broken, but we can't say it because it was a Conservative Party that broke it", while others claimed it was not.The lexeme with which he, like most MPs, disguises the tacit media strategy of power broking at the heart of the Parliamentary model is indicative of the general rot which has grown upon the flank of British society; broad divisions which are the results of conflicts in class that manifest as economic and social indicators are interpreted through an opportunist lens of petty nationalism that strives to impose one particular form of class rule through its ideal of civic order. There is no recourse to the portrayal of these issues except through those which form in their own image, because the machinery of class rule cannot adequately provide representation to them beyond that language it has for them. Historical contradictions in the political state are hence displaced within a material order that cannot as of yet resolve them: "Britain" stands as an empty political unifier which masks the blatant manipulation of fact regarding present circumstances in which the social decline of the nation is rooted in the failure of austerity, reducing it instead into an ideological bile which conceals the fundamental relation between capitalist and worker.
Hence this earth-shatteringly moronic and childlike language used in which the total set of social relations within Britain are embodied in a power struggle and succession of one faction of the petite-bourgeoisie over the other, this operation seeming to be the mere recourse of necessity as British capital is forced into ever progressively reactionary policy measures in order to maintain its standing within the international order. The social fractures which have emerged in the present day as a result of the sustained conflicts against workers within Britain will deepen and intensify as its political rule becomes more regressive over time. It is absolutely farcical that Jenrick has decided to scuttle into the arms of Reform as it is nothing more than a rat fleeing a sinking ship.
I just watched 28 Years Later the Bone Totem, it was alright though suffered from 2nd in a trilogy problems. But there were a lot of good things, I liked the doctor talking to Samson and the Jimmy gang. It is kind of funny though that everyone after the intro collapses after getting stabbed once and then it takes ages for them to die, when really you can get stabbed many times and keep fighting, then immediately die of shock at some random point.
I'm disappointed with Your Party and the Green Party going with the path of democracy. We actually need a dictator with a great vision, not compromise.
>>2650709speak for yourself
>>2650716>"Britain" stands as an empty political unifier which masks the blatant manipulation of fact regarding present circumstances in which the social decline of the nation is rooted in the failure of austerity, reducing it instead into an ideological bile which conceals the fundamental relation between capitalist and worker.this is why nationalism is often the most cynical politics, since it attempts to collect the subjects of a territory as comrades, beckoned by a signifier which is inwardly insignificant. the poets tolkien (1940) and blake (1804) both idealised a "green and pleasant land" as against the backdrop of "satanic mills", abstracting the lived reality of millions to an agricultural phantasm. i have also previously spoken of the anglo-saxon illusions of a "norman yoke", which is also made contemporary in the work of gerrard winstanley (1649), that the yoke is not merely national, but based in class by the rights of property. there is not one idea of the "free born" englishman then, but one inwardly divided in its status. adam smith similarly developed this (1776), where he arrests the concept of "national" wealth to its division between classes, stating, for example, that high profit is harmful to society, while high wages are beneficial. there is not one britain then, but many. in terms of racial status, i have shared daniel defoe's comments (1701) that an "englishman" is an inherently contradictory, as yet, the emblem of universal man (where equality before the law is given). this universality can be seen in the case of somerset vs stewart (1772), where to be subject to english law is to be set upon english soil, and so to not be bound by the conditions of slavery, as it was in the colonies. being english is then a legal concept of having "free born" rights, such as john lilburne (1645) professed, and what winstanley (1649) concluded upon. if there is an idea of england, then it must be inclusive of abstract virtue, which itself must be related to a universal humanity, something which the USA was supposed to represent…
>>2650052This stuff is fake there was ONE report that showed Gen Z were just more religious than millenials (but weren't even as religious as Gen X) but actual headcounts in Churches show no increase in attendance.
>>2651572>>2651576With this and that weird "Jacobite African Clan" what the fuck is going on??
>>2651572May as well go full warlord state a this point
>>2651576so what's the narrative for using the norman coat of arms ? (aside from it being cool I guess)
>>2651601the declaration on the website signs off its document with the seal of the house of plantagenet (c. 1154-1485), a royal dynasty from france, so it only complicates things. the plantagenets intermarried with the normans, with such offspring as king john (1166-1216), who jefferson claims is his ancestor. jefferson further claims that as a black man, none of his genaeology can be traced back to africa, so he must be implying a black nativity in europe (the same way he imagines black people are both native americans and anglo-saxons).
jefferson appears to locate his earliest ancestor in king edgar (c. 943-975), of whom he also implies is a reincarnation of Jesus Christ. the archbishop, deande belmont, traces his lineage back to the normans by humphrey de vielles (980-1050), the founder of the house of beaumont. he also says this:
>The Belmont/Beaumont families ascends and descend from The King’s of Jerusalem, France, Alba which is commonly known as The Kingdom of Scotland, Ireland, and most importantly The Kingdom of England.so its also a type of biblical revisionism. the "co-archbishop" andre murphy claims to be a descendent of the mythical "scotia" (from whence "scotland" bears its name).
a curious argument of appealing to "time immemorial" is often cited, with the notion that a sort of spiritual "memory" vindicates these claims of legitimacy, and that what is claimed from these people has this "immemorial" quality to it (with its effect in statute law only applying to custom and rites before 1189). the general idea of this however is that we live in a corrupt world and must return to the "rule of law" under the english tradition of freedom. as yet, he is not on the side of the american revolution, but is a loyalist to the british crown, since the US was apparently taken over by people who made it a corporation.
the anglo-saxon berber connection is that the berbers (natives of north africa, e.g. moroccans, algerians) are called "imazighen" or "free people", linking to the status of the "freeman" of english law. yet, the berbers are not of the same phenotypes as west africans or subsaharan africans (e.g. bantu peoples). jefferson has already claimed to not have african ancestry, so calling the anglos berbers seems contradictory, unless berbers are also not african. andre murphy also claims to be from scotia, who in myth, is egyptian… king clifford jefferson appears to have been making content on this subject for over 6 years. this is all in line with afrocentrist obsessions with royalty, such as the black hebrew israelites, who claim to be the "chosen people" and have the rights of a noble birth, and who also engage in much historical revisionism, like the nation of islam, who for example, spread the myth that jews dominated the slave trade, which isnt true. all together, this is not mere schizophrenia, but is a torrent of desperate fantasies for power, respect and dignity following the trauma of the debasement and slavery of a people, such as modern african-americans.
Genuinely beginning to think the only way Britain can be saved is from the outside. Like we're going to be the last place on Earth that gets liberated during the global revolution 200 years from now. Hell, maybe it would take a literal alien invasion to end British capitalism & imperialism.
In any case I don't feel very hope-pilled about these islands.
>>2651693Changes that are the result of internal developments within capitalism will lead to new intensified struggles over the next decade which will change your view.
Fundamentally the balancing act is coming to an end; the wage differential which secured the broad electoral consensus in which the bourgeoisie purchased wholesale the political conscience of British workers cannot be maintained as capital enters into a yet further sustained and ever deepening crisis. The political state, as a reflection of these developments, is abandoning this era of democratic legitimation and has begun to seek refuge in ever more radical nationalist rhetoric which in its present state cannot fully disguise these symptoms.
Subsequently the state as of the moment is extremely weak; this historical transition in the mode of bourgeois governance has led to a systematic fragmentation in which no one party can be said to hold Parliament either due to internal infighting or holding an insufficient majority as to be termed the opposition, or both.
This dual failure in the weakened almost decayed form of Parliamentary rule and the inability of any one faction to mount a challenge is the source of hopelessness you feel.
Although this cannot happen due to the present state of affairs, were there a historical bloc based on a revolutionary workers movement they would sweep to power in the present crisis.
In actuality what is most likely to happen is that the form of class rule will break down into ever more degenerative measures as social conflict becomes rife in a weakened state that must consolidate its power not on the sole basis of securing an electoral mandate but instead maintaining civil order through an ever more repressive rule which sweeps into its clutches the total social body of British capitalism.
In a word, the latent development of Fascism. If you wish for a vision of what British society may look like in five or ten years it may be found in that or present day America wherein the growing authoritarianism of the right must battle against the poxy of its ever increasingly insufficient through the centralisation of powers granted to its power base.
Reform, should it achieve a majority, will face these same challenges only those which are both unique to British society and be aided by the Fascistic interests of foreign capital (Musk et al). Should they fail to consolidate power whilst in state British society will further drift into a period of decay akin to that experienced by Germany within the Weimar period.
It is over the course of this period that workers must be tasked to strike, not in the form of bourgeois socialist electoralism but in its revolutionary elements.
In actuality, what the revolutionary socialists must seize upon is the political will to enforce a new period of terror; the British bourgeoisie must not simply be overthrown but permanently liquidated if class rule is to cease by feeding popular discontent not aimed at anyone political program but sheer revolutionary violence. It is behind this that the vanguard must follow step for step.
>>2651738ever increasingly insufficient powers*
>>2651738>>2651740*through their centralisation granted to its base
>>2651738starmer is a bigger authoritarian warmonger than farage
>>2651738The political program you must advocate for if you are a socialist in Britain is one of general agitation by pushing the state into ever more extreme measures in conditions in which its inherent instability in rule leads to its own collapse.
On the one hand, this would mean placing before the supporters of those bourgeois socialist of Corbyn and Sultana the recognition of their own inadequacies. Sultana's attempt at reinvigorating the British left behind a policy of complete nationalisation will not yield anything but failure as their political enemies will regroup even if they achieve power as well as the fact that they will be unable to deal with the historical situation. Sultana aims at the same program as Reform, i.e. a petty state nationalism, but with a left wing agenda.
On the other, this must look like a complete division in the right by exploiting their own internal conflicts.
In short, a forment for those conditions which lead invariably to the necessity of establishment deadlock and its overthrown.
By terror what is meant is not terrorism. These are not the political demands for revolutionary overthrow based on random acts of barely coordinated violence against the British population, but a coordinated strategy that leads to the complete eradication of that ruling faction: the bourgeoisie.
The demand that all socialists should take in the present circumstances is one of revolutionary overthrow. Anything less is insufficient or else naive.
>>2651775Right wing brain rot, stop using social media
>>2651775they called trump the peace president and anti interventionist
>>2651787what? starmer wants ww3 with russia.
>>2651788starmer supports trump as well
>>2651785>the worse things get, the bettera strategy that only works to breed fascism.
>>2651792Completely missed the point award
>>2651791If you continue to view the problems of British society as the result of individual people and not the system in general you will forever be blinded by such bourgeois propaganda.
Stop reading the daily mail
>>2651793whats the point exactly?
youre an anon, not the next lenin. calm down.
>>2651794okay, labour are as bad, if not worse, than reform
is that better?
>>2651796British capitalist society is set to degenerate into further conflict, such that the latent development of Fascist rule is present through the backing of Capital to its ever growing extremist political currents in order to maintain the repressive social order of commodity production.
With the subsequent weakening of its rule in the coming period of historical transition, these reactionary elements will be embittered in their confrontation with those social contradictions which begat them; their attempts to consolidate power will be met by the same frustrations that give rise to their antagonists in its more liberal opposition and the reformist left.
The question posed explicitly is what can overcome this national strife; the bourgeois socialists demand economic nationalisation which is to be achieved through the same system of political legitimacy whichactively supports their eradication and works againast them.
The position as a result is clear: revolution. But it must be both decisive and populist, in that it must both decapitate the national rule of the bourgeoisie once and for all, at last its permanent burial, as well as be achieved through a popular overthrow of the weakened system of governance which is to prevail.
The strategy this must take is in proving to those adherents of the bourgeois socialsits that the basis for their entire project is premised on the same rotten foundations by which they make their demands. They seek economic nationalisation, but through a system of bourgeois class rule. On the one hand, these individuals must be radicalised from this position, in realising that it is all or nothing.
On the other it is to be exploitation of the right's weaknesses and internal contradictions which drive them, i.e. the unpopularity of their own economic policies which they must increasingly obscure to their own workers through their system of repressive ideological rule.
In the end, British workers will be forced accept the reality of their circumstances, in that a revolution is inevitable. The social relations of produciton must be reordered as the national economic base in turn is systematically reorganised. Those crises which are not only endemic but existential to the system of production itself threaten in a final sense the continued existence of society.
The question then is what sort of revolution. The socialist answer must be at once first and decisive: it must be a communist one.
>>2651890firm and decisive*
>>2651897*meaty and sensuous
>>2651890marx said that britain can achieve a peaceful and legal revolution, amidst the dickensian conditions of his time. i have no patience for your anti-social wankery that sacrifices politics for activism.
>>2651890Ultimately, with the prevailing system of capitalist rule the total body of society will be forced into a reconciliation with those determinant conditions which face them, primarily as they appear in their political circumstances.
If the British socialists concede and adopt a reformist strategy to power they will be mired in the same bog into which the Parliamentary system is sinking. Conversely, in securing their position they must also achieve through a popular overthrow of this system of governance their victory.
The promulgation stated is one of a political terror. The entire basis for the class rule of the bourgeoisie must be liquidated, along with every type of their supporters: sychophants, opportunists, class traitors.
The absolute stupidity of Your Party is that it believes it can rally behind itself a minority vote in order to achieve a Parliamentary majority by offering the same form of governance which, after 80 years, has presently begun to decline.
It is laughable that they are considered the only serious possibility for socialism within Britain, primarily because they attract like a magnet every would be reformer to their cause who in the end cannot accept the political reality.
>>2651928>marx said that britain can achieve a peaceful and legal revolutionThis is such evident horseshit it is a wonder as to why you wrote it.
>>2651937>horseshitmarx supported reformist movements like the chartists. he didnt support burning down society. i am on marx's side, not this new left maoist bollocks.
>>2651939calling for a violent revolution is peak armchair spectatorship. socialism will come through parliament, sorry to say.
>>2651941The Chartists were violent and their popular uprising was surpressed in 1848; you don't even know your own history.
Likewise, if your demands aren't for revolution what are you even doing on this site.
>>2651955i want a peaceful and legal revolution
you want to kill the country to build a hill out of scraps
>>2651961I wish to shiver my chains and those of others, you wish to continue being a slave.
Remember that in twenty years.
>>2651965you are a slave to senseless passions
join a gym instead of ejaculating your frustrations at us
if capitalism is chaos and socialism is order, be orderly
>>2651974You are literally just sprouting more mindless horseshit, shut the fuck up.
>>2651976go on them, im all ears
whats the plan? make things worse and then when things are really bad, take power?
Humans by our nature are disorderly, illogical, cruel, animal, and barbarian.
We evolved to survive and hunt on the African savannahs, to reproduce as efficiently as possible. That's it. We're an overgrown virus. Order is an irrelevancy, a by-process of conscious minds, an unnecessary complication of sapience, of the unanticipated evolution of emergent higher order thought processes.
Mentally we haven't evolved past our palaeolithic programming.
We do not understand reality. We can't even directly interact with it if we tried. Our meat suits and our brains filter and interpret the data - and they are hardwired to lie to us.
Every day your mind tells itself millions of little lies in order to process the data it receives on the limited energy and hardware available to it.
Our brains fill in the blanks in vision during saccades, only focuses on the centre of the visual field, filters out the background noise, filters out unlikely background data, to sort reorganise and delete memories. Failure leads to the psychoses and schizophrenias of too much data and the inability to prioritise.
What is order? It's an unreachable utopia. It's finding out the light at the end of the tunnel is always retreating from you.
No amount of discipline, no amount of scientific understanding will ever make it real to our consciousnesses. Because evolutionarily speaking it isn't a necessity, it's a hindrance.
It's the chaos of constant change and flux that breeds innovation and new pathways, new developments, better survival, better reproduction.
My point is terms like order are meaningless. Because we are not logical entities. You cannot intellectually rape humans into rationality. You cannot breed maths.
That said, we have to strive against biology to an approximation of logic all the same, because to abandon it is to embrace the barbarity, the idealism, fascism.
Accept order isn't real. And then fight the core of your own biology to achieve it, to build fact, truth, science, materialism, progress.
Kill the palaeolithic hunter gatherer who rides your brain, strangle the life out of him, build a temple to logic and order on his grave.
>>2652066Say what you want it changes nothing.
>>2652064humans are actually naturally kind and intelligent
only a minority of psychopaths rule over us
>>2652061do you also clean your chimney?
>>2652088Kindness isn't the same as being logical. Intelligence isn't the same thing as having consciousness.
>>2652102to me, people are generally good, not generally bad.
the idea that we are inherently evil is superstitious at best, and justifying of violence at worst.
The truth for communists is even bleaker than long-post lad makes out: the truth is that in one sense Labour could fix 80% of the pain with economic and social reforms entirely possible under neoliberalism and bring Britain up to the level of a half-functioning country. Indeed, Reform or the Tories could also take/have taken some of these steps.
In the other sense, not even a revolution could save Britain because path dependency and institutional incompetence runs too deep. One would inevitably find that the middle ranks of the British Republic would be stacked with those who'd reproduce much of the dynamics of the status quo.
Milton Friedman was wrong about a few things, but never more right than when saying: People respond to incentives. Britain, alas, is a nation of bad incentives.
>>2652198as carl menger understood, economic faculty comes from scarcity of resources, which is then the prerequisite for rationalising their allocation. the public sector is simply too rich, because it "spends other peoples money" as mrs thatcher used to say.
>>2652208It's not that it's too rich, it's that it's too closed a system. Fake private firms set up by thatcher buy politicians to keep giving them public money and refrain from changing the regulatory environment in such a way as to bring in competition.
Britain was particularly vulnerable to this flagrant corruption because our primary constitutional defence against it is the idea that Tory aristocrats will be financially comfortable enough from daddy's estate that they'll be good chaps and, while covering up a noncing here or there, they won't put their hands in the till. This is not a theory that survived contact with the 1980s.
>>2652214no, i feel that the liberty of spending inherently causes frivolity, like the obscenity of common luxuries, such as rolex watches. the richer you are, the less rational. plato describes this in part where he says that an ideal leader cannot be paid too heavily or he will be corrupted by the wrong incentive. thats why paying MPs minimum wage will immediately solve political incompetency since so many would immediately quit.
>>2652218How did you find your way to this site
>>2652220sorry?
pay MPs 20 grand a year and things will get better.
agree?
>>2652223I'm talking about quoting the socially backward political ideals of long since dead slave owners on a Marxist imageboard.
Perhaps, comrade, we should abolish wages altogether if we wish for our MPs to do their jobs
>>2652218you're thinking too optimistically. first, in the sense that you're aiming for a sort of rational ideal rather than simply "as bad as other countries", second and more pedantically that unless you control not just their spending but their entire lifestyle, you can just gift them things - and gifts are where our MPs really show how pathetic they are.
In a way I respect Lloyd George selling peerages and using the money to fund only his faction of the liberal party - peerages are stupid and that's a good game if you can play it. industrialists on his side get ermine robes, he gets money, everyone wins. i think Tony Blair is an idiot for trading peerages for
loans that Labour had to pay back (come on man!), and I think that it's simply pathetic that Keir Starmer can be bought off with concert tickets and suits. if keir starmer were selling the country out for millions and tens of millions that would be one thing, but he's being bribed for about the value of his salary! the man in charge of £1,200,000,000,000 of public spending should not be bought for ~£100,000 in suits and concert tickets. his rolex alone should cost more than that!
>>2652246i should clarify that last part to avoid ambiguity: of course, the ideal prime minister does not have a £100,000 rolex. but a prime minister who was at least
good at being corrupt would have such a rolex. in being so small-change in his corruption, you can tell that Starmer isn't even good at
that. we have not elevated a skilled but evil operator, we have elevated a dud, a mark who doesn't know the value of what he's selling. we have elevated a loser who would be out of his depth running a tesco superstore.
Greens latest attempt to win the youth vote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv709w9j1xo
<Green Party calls for under-22s to get free bus passes>The Green Party is calling for free bus passes for everyone under the age of 22 in England to make it easier for them to travel for work and education.>>2652264A fact so indisputable it needs to be backed up by surgical modification
>>2652447I agree with this, I remember having to forge bus passes to get into town to work for free on an 'apprenticeship'
>>2652447it's not a terrible idea (they do this in scotland) but i always hate age-gated policies like this. it's bad, but i feel like a time-limited system (e.g. 4 years of free bus travel to use as you please) is better.
mostly because my circumstances were such that i couldn't and wouldn't have taken advantage of free bus travel until 25 at the youngest. yet generally the rule is: free/subsidized for <25 and >60, otherwise fuck you toil more.
railcards, which do admittedly have a 26-30 now, can have me ranting for hours. you think "oh, but it's just sensible price discrimination by age to sell tickets at times when there's less demand to people who statistically have less money" and then you see that the network railcard, the first railcard, was literally just a subsidy for living in london. >>2652447They have this in scotland and it's saved my ass so many times icl
being born in britain is some real kafkaesque rng
thought you were being clever putting all your modifiers into pushing gdp per capita above $20,000 didn't you? thought you were going to get something good, didn't you? you thought you lucked out when you got "native language: english" didn't you?
fuck you, you're gonna wish you'd taken the malay shopkeeper's son you rolled instead of rerolling you dumb fuck
>>2653010Scotland wins again.
England stay stranded
>>2653189>out when you got "native language: english" didn't you?No i knew i fucked chargen as soon as i went and read the regional socio-economic metas, tbh. Just keep playing this stupid game because i cbf to delete.
Ridiculous. Didn't think accent would matter so i just chose the fun quirky one and now on top of hard debuff to basically all social checks it also soft-locks you out of any real progression. stupid fucking nonsense. Starmer sending his most strongly worded tweets in response to the Trump tariffs… Amazing work.
>>2652225>marxist imageboardleftist, not marxist.
>>2652246>control lifestylesthats also platonic, where he prescribes strict regulations on the guardians. i would say that with great power comes great responsibility, so simply penalise the enemies of the nation with treason.
>>2652264the issue with the formalism is that it fails to see how exceptions are the basis of rules. this notion of "honourary" identity is ancient, based on initiation.
>>2653189i dont quite understand this post
but i sense racism
i would again refer to daniel defoe (1701) in his satire of english identity, and doubly appeal to the spiritual law of nations by social contract, in rousseau (1755-62).
>>2652064>Humans by our nature are disorderly, illogical, cruel, animal, and barbarian.But also orderly, logical, good and civilised. Both can be true.
>>2655942What if China did the same?
>>2655942it's interesting that israel isn't a NATO member isn't it?
And is trump putting a tariff on Canada as well?
BBC Newsnight guests today:
>Right Wing Tory Lord
>Blue Labour Lord
>Scottish Labour Starmerite
>Mar-o-Lago faced US Republican
It's great to see how well the range of views are represented on our TVs!
>>2656140Anything worthy of note said?
>>2655942I will never understand this narrative.
>>2656837>people who have an easy time of it are more susceptible to propagandano.
fucking.
way
Does anybody actually like the yookay?
>>2656985Literally the opposite of what's happening, uneducated people are the ones responding to propaganda*. You see this in educated people voting for Labour in 2019.
*Or, if you're an autism score phrenologist, propaganda rags tell them what they want to hear and do while more educated people are a different case - hence, Guardian propaganda couldn't stop educated people voting Corbyn but Sun propaganda could swing people with a reading age of 7.
>>2657009People have created and defende borders since countries, peoples, and cultures existed. To say that to er on the side of history is 'responding to propaganda is just disingenuous.
Essentially, if you to to uni you are likely to become a soppy luvvie, because it is the breeding ground of such people and ideas.
>>2657011In the same way, if you get a job working for Hard Dave's Scaffolding Crew, you'll probably start having illegal thoughts, because it is the breeding ground of such people and ideas.
It's fuck all to do with being more or less educated.
>>2657011National borders as we know them today are relatively modern, internal borders used to be stronger but transport was previously the main restriction
>>2657009The only way the majority of those who graduate do so is by taking out a loan and hence going into a degree of state funded debt over their lifetime. As a result these individuals likely adopt political sympathies which are a product of their general collective interest, namely social democratic values and softer stances on immigration, as this debt represents the collateral of their economic position within society.
>>2657020It really doesn't mater which borders you pick, or when they existed, if you don't ave borders, you don't have distinct cultures and distinct people.
Those Aboriginals? Nope. just a bunch of people with the same right to the land as literally anyone on Earth.
>>2657021This I can accept, but it stands to compound the left advantage over and above the selection effect of filtering out stupid people.
As and when social democracy fails to deliver (indeed, is actively prevented from even failing to deliver) they drift further and further left. A real virtuous cycle.
The only oddity is that the effect holds across ages: a 70 year old with a degree (who'd have got it debt free);has like a 40% chance of voting Labour in 2019 while one without is as close to 0% as to make no odds. (e.g. education pulls left even for the comfortably off with landlord/retired class interests)
>>2657026Inane.
>>2657038No.
In fact, any 'accepted' discussion regarding borders is used to attack and dismantle European identity. Notice as soon as I flip he script you shrink back behind name calling.
The aboriginals have their own identity, culture and land because….
Because they got there first? They did their murderous conquest before anyone had the chance to write it down? How does it work?
The jews got BTFO out of the middle East by the Romans, so now of course they will live by their own convictions and say that Isreal is a land of migrants and does not belong to the jewish people right?
Right?
>>2657051it's almost as if the whole topic of borders, migration and national identity is one bi cesspit of propaganda tailored to the Israeli world-view.
>>2657038State funded education privileges class outcomes; those who studied at university well up until the early 2000s did so without the tuition hike, namely in those social conditions which favoured upward mobility in which individuals would adopt such progressive opinions as part of a general process of securing both their careers and lifestyles.
To make a cheap pun, the principle hasn't changed, only the amount of debt.
Likewise when social democracy fails a broad section of these individuals will not just simply jump into bed with an ever further left politics; most will likely take those attitudes, and the subsequent representation of these, which secure their quality of life. Today most enter into degrees in order to move from the limbo of low skilled, low wage work, into that which offers them an income closer to the median salary and a stable career insulated from the difficulties of the former.
In short, it may not be a surprise if Reform win a portion of the student vote.
>>2657044European identity is meaningless, a failed supranational state and a nonsense historically. I've a stronger identity as a clubcard holder.
Maybe later I'll write something about how the left/right smart/dumb distinction intersects with the preference for voluntary Vs arbitrary/ "natural" differentiation between people.
>>2657026>It really doesn't mater which borders you pick, or when they existed, if you don't ave borders, you don't have distinct cultures and distinct people.does it not matter which borders you pick, really? if we are talking about nations, then we are talking about territories, and so are defining the legitimate bounds of a central state authority to act within these borders.
on the a priori concept of borders, this is accepted as a fact of things, where as we may understand it abstractly, the difference between things in themselves are the boundaries of their substances, such that tomato sauce is not brown sauce, and so both pertain to their existence so long as they maintain distinction. these distinctions are their separate qualities (e.g. taste, colour, texture). in society, we may see that the primary boundary of what we call an "individual" begins in his person, and extends to his abode. however, as we see in history, distinction between "personal space" was often lacking in the family unit. as aristotle then says, the family is the fundament of society, with the rest of society growing out of this (the final cause of which to aristotle was the polis, or city-state, but what we consider today as the nation-state). in this teleology, there is still a difference highlighted by aristotle however, that although the household (oikos) is the basis of the state (polis), both are managed differently. aristotle states for example that the household ought to be considered a monarchy (e.g. parental authority), while the state may be configured in whatever manner is acceptable to its people.
so then, the first boundary is in the oikos, which is not necessarily separating its internal members (such that the child has no independence from the mother). this is a private border which is uncontroversial to all prejudice. proof of this is in how left-wing events may promote public borderlessness, yet do not permit private borderlessness in the case of their voluntary arrangement and contract. can we then generalise the logic of borders to the nation as a whole? of course, as a brute fact, that borders can be imposed - but is it ethical? so long as it is democratically mandated, since now, the oikos relates to the polis by medium of the demos (citizenry). what then decides the legitimacy of an oikos? in the case of aristotle, the oikos operated as the basis of the polis by its public revenue (taxation), like the early american ideal of representation by taxation. as such, america limited its manner of representation, by also limiting who could become a citizen (e.g. the naturalisation act, 1790, which limited naturalisation for immigrants to white people), and so we come upon a further question - who ought to be rightfully considered a citizen?
if we take the means of citizenship by birthright, this is rather straightforward in the case of a majority population, but who may further be allowed naturalisation? of we determine this right by a sum of the public revenue, then a period of employment (and thus taxation) could allow this, since it shows a positive investment to the nation, as well as loyalty. if we then hypothesise this we can compare two cases: someone who has birthright but who also adds a negative cost to the nation, versus an immigrant who is employed and adds to the nation. in this case, we may strictly view things by civility and class, where one's criminal and employment status gives us a quantity of debit and credit they bring. so then, nations must inherently discriminate against debit and promote credit, internally and externally, and this determines the motivation for borders or not.
so then, in the case of private borders, access is determined by cost and loyalty, the same as public borders, where those who provide mutual benefit are granted a place in a host territory. xenophon is even more cosmopolitan than aristotle, seeing rich immigrants as a strategy to increase the strength of the state by revenue, and for which purpose, xenophon promotes their inhabitation in greece. so then, borders can be described by these terms: mutual benefit, or not, which is also a basic law of trade, interpersonally and internationally.
>>2657116Imagine, when asked if you would like any sauce with your meal, that 'yes' is suitable answer.
These borders don't even need to be at the country level, you have virtual borders right down to the smallest level - your own front door.
>>2657087Hello Zoomer, they've done an absolute number on your brain and you should never forgive them
>>2657138I wish I were a zoomer. Then I wouldn't be old enough to find myself tempted to reply: not an argument.
>>2657142Europe has an incredibly rich and densely packed history you fcking cunt
You've got the North/South divide.
Those two things are different because people have decided it is important. And that's as good a reason as it will ever be, and as good a reason that you need to accept.
imagine some a-hole telling you that you have fallen for right wing propaganda because you lock your front door at night.
"uhm ackshually front doors are only a relatively recent concept"
>>2657135your own body is a boundary which separates you from others. access to your body is regulated by laws, which if they are violated, we consider violence, and the aggressor is duly charged. the rights of all further property which pertain to personal ownership have their contract by the same terms, that one needs direct or indirect permission of access to use such an article. the household being a basic habitation and reserve of the individual's property and kin is then a reasonable starting point in locating society. the household as such maintains its independence from the polis however, since the oikos may grant kin which are not demos into its organisation (such as family or friends) while the polis is only representative of a demos.
>>2657168
Putting a face mask on is basically Hitler
>>2657168
our individual cells also have walls that can be infiltrated by malign viruses and diseases. a refugee is someone who has legitimate right of stay in a country however, by mandate of international law, which is why most asylum seeker applications are denied.
>>2657173It comes down to what you find important, like I said earlier
>>2657176laws can be modified to pertain to more relevant interests, so democracy is often about the collective interest of a nation - in representative democracy, many find that it only elects parties and not policies however, as oppposed to direct democracy, lets say.
>>2657144It's not that it wants for history, it's that Europe's history makes a farce of European identity because Europeans have spent all their time killing other Europeans over stupid bullshit.
>>2657179the law is an attempt to framework morality, and morality is 'what people find important'
>he lives in an area where he feels the need to lock his door
Move.
>>2657180That's what people do
>>2657184>just make your own neighbourhood broalso I don't lock my door btw
>>2657185Furries and vaporware musicians rarely kill each other, maybe people should identify more with stuff like that and less with weird geographically arbitrary groups of mostly dissimilar people killing one another and secretly hoping you'd kill for them if asked
>>2657189see now we're back on the subject of sheltered existence producing soppy luvvies. I wonder how many furries live in Uganda?
>>2657187Not make, choose.
Move. >>2657181>the law is an attempt to framework morality, and morality is 'what people find important'not necessarily. in england we have typically had a dual system of customary common law and statute law, in the same sense that we have had self-governing communities. the law and morality never directly align, since all rules have their exception by the clause of loyalty. for example, friends and family would not see it as necessary to subject a kinsman to the state, while he may of a stranger for the same act. here, the oikos rules over the polis by its particularity. thus, the law is set as a general rule, with its own exceptions. further, the law itself manifests from the general will rather than vice versa, and so law can really act as crime, where it is actionable according to the interests of a particular class. revolution in this case is simply the movement of civil order back to public, rather than private interest. we see this today in the UK, where the "rule of law" is losing its civil equality (e.g. "anarcho-tyranny"). this was also the basis of the english civil war following edwade coke's petition of right (1628). thus, revolution is not chaos, it is order. law becomes disorder where it fails to serve the people. this is why law and morality are also dissimilar in character.
>>2657191Do you want to live like a Ugandan? Should Britain become Uganda?
You will, naturally, argue that letting Ugandans into Britain turns Britain into Uganda. I argue the opposite: they (or their children) will be furry vaporwave musicians like all civilised people.
Forget migrants, our own right wing are uncivilised savages.
>>2657205there are plenty of right-wing furries btw
>>2657208By absolute number sure but by relative proportion, nah. (As much as leftypol may wish it weren't true)
live in a crumbling nazi SHITHOLE
Worthy of comment: the war apologia by Stella Creasy in a Guardian scred
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/20/donald-trump-britain-europe-labour-uk
>There is no easy solution – but, as ever, there are always ways to make a bad situation worse. Green party leader Zack Polanski, for example, demands we get ready to evict US bases from British soil, and says the UK should “ditch Trident – and fast.” He claims this could be done without undermining Ukraine or Nato, while still standing up to “Putin’s imperial ambitions”. But in reality, an emotional response to the US will do little to stop Trump dealing with Russia over the Ukrainians’ heads. Scrapping Trident is the precise opposite of what our European allies want or need. It abandons a key part of our commitment to their security as well as our own, and leaves Putin with only the French nuclear arsenal to contend with, should his ambitions spread further across Europe. What may sound bold in the echo chamber of the Greens’ social media would not survive the stark reality of the horrified response to unilateral British disarmament from our German or Polish counterparts.The future of Britain's intergration with the content is proposed under that of its common militarised ambition with the European states. As such their article leads to the obviously well purposed implicit assumption that British defence spending must be increased, regardless of the fiscal cost, on the basis that it will strengthen those deeper economic relations with Europe and in turn the British economy. The final paragraph of the article is slouched in the craven language of these bitter would-be continentals who contrast their chauvinistic ideals of a European democratic, bourgeois, identity with that of their enemies.
Quite why this appeal has been made is baffling; perhaps it is the PLP pressuring the front brench into drawing into the open the Labour parties ambitions of renegotiation with the customs union on the basis that it is now unavoidable.
Hilariously the party has abandoned all talk of a general refusal to maintain anything lower than 5% spending for defence as such talk now represents effectively disarmament, specifically of its imperialist ambitions on the basis that it is no longer poliitcally acceptable. As austerity was drawn into the consciousness of the British workers as an unavoidable consequence of unquestionably maintaining the present social order, now too war takes its place. Unfortunately for Creasy these policy positions are subsumed within the broader context of Labour's waning political fortunes; this attempt to rally behind a broader appeal to the general public on the basis of its liberal ambitions in order to regain an electoral foothold is no longer possible. The popularity of Reform grows precisely because Labour will be unable to deliver within their Parliamentary term those changes which should be deemed necessary in order to counteract the putrefying rot which has set into British society.
The article itself comes at such a time when Trump's actions find disfavour with the British right, and so are more likely attempts to convert what few dissatisfied marginals they can reap from the growing general confusion. Fundamentally however, with no meaningful capacity nor the intent to offer British workers the concessions necessary to counter declining living standards - either through their own attempt at industrial growth or welfarist policies - they will be unable to avoid their inevitable routing come 2029.
The longer the government clings to power the more it is thrown into disarray, precisely because economic investment strategies have been reduced to a series of technical pulleys and levers that do little other than to moderate the fortunes of the British bourgeoisie.
>>2657459Perhaps the only thing more credulous in this article than Creasy's apoloiga is that of Polanski's characterising Russia's military offensive as “Putin’s imperial ambitions”.
This is hilarious in that it is nothing more than their clown-like attempt to disguise behind a public exterior of pacifistic sentiment to their moronic supporters the same militarist designs of the British ruling classes.
This cognitive disonance is characteristic of that set of the British public which lacks the general capacity to confront and recognise the true basis for their present economci interests, instead taking to the most profound level of stupidity the attempt to cloak even unto themselves the truth which sustains the current set of social relations.
>>2657485 (You)
As an aside, this general state of rank ignorance within the British workers is a product of that sustained political reaction wherein they are mired up to their heads in the shit capitalist society produces. Thus the petite-bourgeoisie, in hearing the drum beat of war by which their factions march to office, intend nothing but the most vile and blatant manipulations of the true interests of the labouring classes in order to resecure that political consensus by which they in turn are granted those excesses of wealth given to them by their masters.
The festering of these parasites in the minds of the British workers who are complicit in their own exploitation hence deepens, as the fangs of the bourgeoisie sink ever further into the necks of the proles in their attempt to suck ever more profit from their bodies. None can imagine a change in this circumstance because the would be social pariahs of Polanski, Corbyn, and Sultana on the British "left" offer only the most dismal of creeds for societal change, to be imagined in the image only of those economic relations which prevail.
BEHEAD ROYALS
>>2657205>I argue the opposite: they (or their children) will be furry vaporwave musicians like all civilised people.Doesn't really happen, most radicalization actually happens in the 2nd/3rd generation. Also you have the issue of entire ethnic enclaves. If white people are driven to minority status in entire regions, why would the "minorities" adopt the trappings of white natives instead of their own community, who are the majority in the region they live? Throw on top that all the anti-white propaganda and constant victim narratives and ethno-narcissism for non-whites and there is no incentive for them to become adopt native civic norms and culture.
Also another part is just Globohomo fucking sucks ass. I felt like I was lucky to see a lot of the world before everything became this homogenized slop. Going to say Lithuania or Sweden or France, seeing masses of indians and arabs on scooters with Deliveroo bags everywhere, seeing McDonalds and all the same high streets with Turkish barber shops, fucking SUCKS.
The irony is Leftists would cry foul if white people did this to the Global South, but there is a complete and total disregard for cultural/ethnic character of European countries and societies, They should just become vaguely brown and filled with American businesses and scam cartel thirdie businesses.
Mass migration also has the other terrible effect of brain draining global south countries. Another thing the left don't seem to care about in their anti-white/european destrudo.
>>2657459Trident really is the funniest thing in the world. You can accept literally every pro-NATO argument and Trident remains nonsense (Economies of scale + national interest dictate Britain should spend the money on conventional forces, maybe give the US more basing rights etc.), you can accept the argument for a stronger European defense system and it remains nonsense. (If we're talking European defense, shouldn't Britain have a genuinely independent deterrent like France instead of renting American missiles? Or, at the very least, should we not lease
French missiles?)
Plus "only the French nuclear arsenal to contend with" is a wonderfully Yes Minister line.
Only Jim Hacker: Are you saying that this nuclear defence system… would stop *all* 192 Polaris missiles?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, not all, no - *virtually* all, 97%.
Jim Hacker: Well, that would still leave… what, about five bombs that would get through?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Precisely - a mere five!
Jim Hacker: Enough to obliterate Moscow, Leningrad and Minsk.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, but that's about all!
>>2657485This seems like anti-Green cope. So long as Green policy isn't defense spending hikes, there's nothing particularly wrong with the Greens taking the line that the world is clearly being broken up into great power spheres of influence (including Russia)
>>2657995If your talking point was correct then the USA would be full of deranged Irish papists, English religious zealots, Italian criminals, Chinese people who never bothered to learn English, Japanese subversives plotting against pearl harbor, and a range of other inscrutable insanity.
And, while the US is insane, it's not insane in
that way. It is, in fact, the global superpower. Declining, perhaps, I can grant, but it hasn't turned into a third world shithole filled with permanently warring ethnic groups like you'd expect if the anti-migration weirdoes were right about the effect of foreigners on our precious bodily fluids.
Homogenization is a function of capitalism and communications technology, not migration flows. Deliveroo would still suck if everyone doing it was a white northerner. Cars (and infrastructure more broadly) still look like shit worldwide because of the general shared incentives faced by designers, not because some blue haired person came along and said everyone has to manufacture the same white dogshit SUVs. The high street is dead because everyone buys things online, it'd still look like shit if you got rid of all the tax-fraud non-businesses and replaced them with even more betfreds. The Greggsreich isn't all that much better than the McDonaldsreich.
>>2658000Laughable that you're arguing this line as it means the spin has worked: Polanski's rhetoric is nothing more than a camouflage wherein international realignment is served to the British public as that flavour of anti-Russian jingoism by which we as well as the Europeans have begin to rearm. Hence the trope of the British state in recognising Putin as its enemy serves the green party leader well as he may whip into a single line his voter base using the liberal sensibilities to which he appeals, i.e a false anti-imperialism.
In actuality it is an appeasement of state interests, as he must serve to his own base and make appetising Labour's increased defence spending whilst readying the British public for further war.
>>2658203This attempt to drive support for their cause thus rests on that same apoliticization by which the right thrives in its counter reaction; the demonstrations are reduced to a question of numbers on the basis of which platform can organise through the most mechanistic of propagandising, each claiming victory as one seeks to suffocate the other.
Russia is irrelevant. Maybe we're going to go to war with them, maybe we're all going to die, they're still irrelevant. China, China's important. America, important. Britain and Europe? Irrelevant except that I live here.
my defence policy is that we should spend nothing. we'll always be a vassal state of somebody and it's not worth getting blown to bits to pick between one or the other. I would, in a provocative sense, apply this logic even between systems: uncool as it is, it is in fact better to live under capitalism than to die defending socialism. if the big powers care that much, let them take control.
every penny of military spending, every single one, globally, is wasted. at best you are wasting the opportunity cost of putting that money into real investment and infrastructure (e.g. £1 of military spending is more than £1 of waste), at worst you'll actually use it and the return on investment will be negative as it kills people and destroys both military equipment and non-military infrastructure and investment. Miserable, miserable, miserable.
english gammon expats are insufferable
>>2657181>>2657204to make further considerations of the distinction between morality and law, or of society and government, we may appeal to classical liberal canon. first is locke (1680) in his notion of the social contract, as the bind of civil society. this is expressly advanced by rousseau in his notion of a "general will" (1755), which bears resemblance to hume's "sympathy", or the habitual civility which establishes custom between people. hume was a friend of rousseau and adam smith (1776), whose "invisible hand" operates as a sympathetic force. similarly, paine (1776-91) affirms that society precedes government, which as an instrument, can only act as a "necessary evil" (where constitution is an act of society in establishing government, not the other way round). proudhon (1850-55) appeals to the primordial sovereignty of the people, such as rousseau before him, and what i locate in the ancient relation of the oikos (household) to the polis (government), to which aristotle affirms its precedence.
there is also immanuel kant, who writes that enlightenment is the means of man's rational self-determination, which by means of practical reason, he locates in the moral law, or universal maxims of human behaviour. the relationship of this personal revelation is not dogmatic however, but is a condition of one's own rational faculties, and so man cannot be forced to be free. the free man is then paradoxically exempt from the political as he becomes subject to his personal rule. so to say, the law of the state maintains its absolute independence from the moral law, since politics is based on contingent force, while morality is based in self-determination. rousseau makes similar comments in regard to the general will, that if one is conformed to it, his freedom will be expanded by the limits of his activity (i have previously demonstrated the link rousseau and quesnay to taoism and their respect of chinese governance).
thus as we understand it, the "necessary evil" of government is not an instrument to be subjected against free men, but only in the administration of justice, which concerns the unfree in their spirit, for they are slaves to passion and vice. the law of freedom is thus the self-government of the rational, while the law of the state is for the protection of property against the irrational. thus, the free cannot be governed from without, but only from within, and so all free men are anarchists. this anarchy i would compare to aristotle's notion of kin, in friendship, where all friends have equality in status and liberty to one another. thus, the society of friends (another name for a church; fellowship) is not political, such as the oikos. freedom then has its own condition of necessity from either end. this can be compared to the spirit and letter of the law, such as we read in the gospel, where one is vindicated in trespassing the letter of the law by his appeal to the spirit of the law. i have otherwise discussed this semiotically, where the rational type will most often perceive connotation as the subtext of denotatum in rhetorical speech, which largely manifests itself by political orientation between left and right. in signs, there is what is said, and what is said, thus.
on the anarchy of liberty, it may be more properly characterised as self-sufficiency, that which aristotle considers an absolute good, and for which, no mistake may be given. dependency is the essence of the slave, like the child or animal, and so they are taken as property from without, like the criminal who has been treated as the possession of the state, and so whom is imprisoned for a time, like the ancient systems of slavery whereby debts would be paid by indentured servitude. thus, slavery first appears as a natural relation as before its political institution. similarly, mastery is the absence of slavery, by attunement of the will to reason rather than to the passions. here is a paradox however, since the master who holds slaves as his property is made dependent upon their care a priori, lest he would not possess slaves. here, a hegelian master-servant dialectic appears, where the master becomes enslaved and the slave becomes ennobled in his servitude. a basic example is the parent and child, for which spiritual authority dwells in the child as a responsibility to the law and not the law-giver ("do as i say, not as i do"). thus, the hypocrisy of the parent at once instructs an opposition to them, where revolution is incurred by obedience to law. this is present in the gospels, where the practioners of religion fail to respect the basis of their belief, or as paul writes, the flesh and spirit of israel are in antinomy.
so then, the anarchist is twofold in his position of mastery; either as hypocrite, or as the enlightened. the enlightened instructs as far as he himself obeys the same law, and so becomes self-evident of a principle of superiority, where elsewise he becomes not only a hypocrite, but a liar. a clause to this proposition is in resolving theory and practice, where the man who is supposed to know good yet fails to act in service of the good is really ignorant of it, for to know is not to say, but to do. thus, he that preaches most is the biggest sinner, as Christ also claims, such as the person who openly prays, for to openly pray is to believe that praise comes from people, rather than God. if virtue is done for its own sake thus, it achieves its own task, like how luther says that the most christian of shoemakers does not put crosses onto shoes, but simply makes the best shoes he can - and so we return to the invisible hand.
the point is to say that the master cannot be a master, since a master has slaves. the free man exists in equality with his fellow kin, as i have explained (e.g. such that Christ affirms humanity as the children of God, without distinction). self-sufficiency thus becomes a shared project, where friends share their property and talents, as a fellowship of believers in common good.
>>2658237I don't care about any of this
>>2658274>i dont care about political scienceof course not, youre only on a political forum.
>>2658278Everything you've written is meandering garbage
>>2658296>garbagesurely you mean "rubbish"?
and i am showing very obviously the absolute distinction between the moral law and law of the state, and thus how the presence of moral law means a dissolution of the state, while the presence of the state means an absence of moral law. i liken this to the inherent exceptionality the oikos holds as against the polis, by the principle of loyalty and self-government by kin, which is the precedent form of society to politics. thus, the state is constituted by the authority of the demos, not the other way round, such as authoritarians believe. this links to my previous post in the formal distinction between common law and statute law in england, which is a basis of revolution, such as we see in propaganda from the levellers and diggers.
>>2658312
if you are discussing politics, it is your duty to understand what politics even is. i am trying to help you with great historical citation, to show why we believe the things we do.
>>2658317You aren't discussing politics, take this shit elsewhere or write about actual events that are occurring in Britain
>>2658323>you arent discussing politicssorry? i am discussing the very essence of politics.
your initial disinterest turned to irrational hostility proves that you are the one lost on this platform, most likely taking gossip as a substitute for substantive conversation, hence your demand for anti-intellectual topicality, paired with an admission of reading incomprehension (e.g. "meandering garbage"; what is in itself an americanised exclamation signifying the archetypal slavishness of our colonial cousins).
>actual events occuring in britainif you had any rational faculties so as to intuit a notion of causation, you could see that my comments connect to the thread of concerns over immigration law and the concept of borders, which is the most topical thing as of late. all you provide in response is a less-than-pedestrian disdain for higher learning, right in line with the ogreish slobs that support nigel farage.
>>2658347You aren't discussing politics, you're posting long diatribes on political philosophy founded on your own delusional misunderstandings of Green and Feudal theorists.
>>2658366>You aren't discussing politics, you're posting long diatribes on political philosophydo you see the contradiction in this statement?
>misunderstandingsplease correct my mistakes so i may understand
>>2658278I made the point that borders are important because the groups of people they define *decide* they are important. Simple and straightforward.
And then toss wizzard derails it to try and define what the legal system is.
>>2658321you think this person gives the slightest shit about the future of this country?
>>2658372This is a Marxist imageboard, if you want to blog about your pathetic brand of metaphysics fuck off to Reddit
>>2658387so you cannot admit to contradicting yourself and cannot correct my supposed mistakes? all while you do this you have an unwarranted rudeness and unpleasant sensibility about your person, which only adds to your lack of rhetorical authority.
>dont discuss intellectual topics herewhy are "marxists" so intolerant of academic research?
>>2658374is not every concept a totality to be considered, especially historically?
>>2658408Fuck off you utter moron, that you've found this space at all is a disaster
>>2658408>is not every concept a totality to be considered, especially historically?yeh but I think it can be manipulative to bog down a point like that
>>2658419go on my son, or daughter
>>2658280
Critical support, although a monarchist state within the US would be funny (and set a nice precedent for Hawaii)
>>2658387This is not a Marxist image board, it's an imageboard with a lot of Marxists on it. He's a bore sometimes but you should shut the fuck up, the last place this shithole needs is even less diversity of thought.
>>2658445>Diversity of thought>Some autistic wanker obsessed with their own sad personal metaphysical dogma trying to 'debate' peopleIt's literally just some cunt vomitting their unedited thoughts using Aristotle and Locke.
>>2658419and still you reply with futile insults, accumulating the falseness of your character under heaps of substanceless exasperation. i would suggest you not take the words of a stranger to be so arresting over your temperament, lest you dishonour yourself further.
>>2658426how do you mean "manipulative"?
>>2658451do you know what marx thought of aristotle? he said he was the greatest thinker of antiquity. i suppose as a "marxist" you would have more curiosity, considering his influence over much of marx's thinking, the same way marx's notion of property deriving from labour is a lockean proposition.
>>2658451Yeah, which beats most of the other autistic cunts on this site. They don't even have thoughts.
>>2658459You mean that same Locke that is lambasted by Marx in the footnotes of Capital as the philosophical basis for the English bourgeois political economists? Or Aristotle, a greek philosopher whose thoughts Marx notes could not escape the confines of the determinant social confines of the greek slave owning economy?
Or Marx's thought itself, which relegated this effluence of this self aggrandising mode of thought in his critique of Hegel doing away with it entirely?
Again, if you wish to debate the miserable icons of bourgeois thought through your own uncritical acceptance of their ideals, fuck off to Reddit where every other pendant like yourself believes they are reinventing the wheel on which they are racked
>>2658321>alreadyShe's been at odd with the Corbyn-Murphy clique since day one
>>2658459>how do you mean "manipulative"?Avoiding what is correct and righteous, in this case acknowledging a truth nugget before moving on
>>2658527When the eyes of he state are on you at all times, what better time to get ur arse out?
~Ronnie Pickering
>>2658515an issue is that saying "yes, but…" can quell the incurious, leading to self-satisfied demonstration without a broader perspective, which is where the rational proof of a proposition really rests.
>>2658482>You mean that same Locke that is lambasted by Marx in the footnotes of Capital as the philosophical basis for the English bourgeois political economists?sorry, but could you provide citation? marx states in many places that the origin of classical political economy is sir william petty (1662), who indeed inspired locke, but not to marx's admission. the inspiration comes in petty's consideration of wealth as a mixture of labour and nature, which are also the compounded elements of locke's notion of "property" (1689), as being based in labour applied to nature (where in marx's 1844 manuscripts he states that labour is the essence of property, the same as in other places). locke further speaks of property being exchanged by the conversion of use-values into exchange-values (the same as what smith, marx and menger proclaim), and locke further states labour as "measure" of value. this is all in the same chapter of his second treatise of government; chapter 5 - on property (1689). marx's disagreements with locke only come as regards his attitude to monetary policy, where marx holds to the sanctity of an intrinsic value in the precious metals, as opposed to locke's view of its prejudice, in being "imaginary" (1691), and thus the value in them being based in their quantity alone, as we read:
<Mankind, having consented to put an imaginary Value upon Gold and Silver by reason of their Durableness, Scarcity, and not being very liable to be Counterfeited, have made them by general consent the common Pledges, whereby Men are assured, in Exchange for them to receive equally valuable things to those they parted with for any quantity of these Metals […] only by their quantity, 'tis evident, that the intrinsick Value of Silver and Gold used in Commerce is nothing but their quantity.https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/locke/part1.htmas for the topic of "english bourgeois political economy", all of marx's basic ideas come from this source, with both marx and engels citing smith (1776) as the discoverer of surplus value:
<Thus even Adam Smith knew “the source of the surplus-value of the capitalist,” and furthermore also of that of the landlord. Marx acknowledged this as early as 1861https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch00.htthis should not be too surprising, of course, since smith is one of the earliest critics of capitalism, along with being the pioneer of the later "ricardian socialists". marx's novel concept of "labour-power" is also itself borrowed from hobbes (1651):
<One of the oldest economists and most original philosophers of England — Thomas Hobbes — has already, in his Leviathan, instinctively hit upon this point overlooked by all his successors. He says: “the value or worth of a man is, as in all other things, his price: that is so much as would be given for the use of his power.” Proceeding from this basis, we shall be able to determine the value of labour as that of all other commodities.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm
>Aristotle, a greek philosopher whose thoughts Marx notes could not escape the confines of the determinant social confines of the greek slave owning economy?as yet, marx considers him the greatest thinker of antiquity:
<Aristotle, the greatest thinker of antiquityhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htmwho first described the form of value:
<the great thinker who was the first to analyse so many forms, whether of thought, society, or Nature, and amongst them also the form of value. I mean Aristotle […] The brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htmmarx also attributes his two modes of commodity circulation (C-M-C) and capital circulation (M-C-M) to aristotle's division between "economy" and "chrematistics":
>Aristotle opposes Œconomic to Chrematistic […] with Chrematistic, there are no bounds to its aims, these aims being absolute wealth. Œconomic not Chrematistic has a limit … the object of the former is something different from money, of the latter the augmentation of money.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm<In Ch. 9, Book I of his Politics, Aristotle sets forth the two circuits of circulation C—M—C and M—C—M, which he calls "economics" and "Chrematistics", and their differences. The two forms are contrasted with each other by the Greek tragedians, especially Euripides.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch02_3.htmaristotle uses this term "chremaristics" to refer to usury, principally, which marx further considers an "antediluvian" form of capital - so aristotle's division still holds. finally, aristotle refers to money as "measure of value", which marx also writes.
>Again, if you wish to debate the miserable icons of bourgeois thought through your own uncritical acceptance of their ideals…the ideals of liberty, equality, justice and property?
why wouldnt i accept these as legitimate?
>>2658646>an issue is that saying "yes, but…" can quell the incurious..it was a wall of ego
and stop shotgun posting, I'm tired of having to quote you
>>2658646Absolutely nothing of what you've written refutes what I've said.
>the ideals of liberty, equality, justice and property?This is absolutely hilarious; you take these words as concepts in and of themselves, abstracting them from their sociality and those historically determinant conditions in which they find expression. Everything you write is just sheer intellectual wankery driven by the misguided notion that what is written is some significant act, given weight by your ripping of quotations from theorists in order to recycle those thoughts which formed beneath the class antagonisms of their own age.
If you wish to engage in this taxonomy of political philosophy through its own degraded forms, fuck off to Reddit.
>>2658681>Absolutely nothing of what you've written refutes what I've saidyou state something factually inaccurate here:
>Locke that is lambasted by Marx in the footnotes of Capital as the philosophical basis for the English bourgeois political economistswhich i corrected you on.
>cant say why i shouldnt pertain to bourgeois idealsit appears that most of your writing is empty of content.
but anyway, if you are indeed contentless, then i would suggest you desist from replying, such as you initially performed with insults, leading to fatal dishonour of your character, since you are only wasting everyone's attention with misdirected frustrations. good day, sir.
How does any of this help me become a furry transhumanist artist
>>2658858
It's always a smokescreen.
The Maduro kidnapping was on the day the Trump regime was supposed to explain why they'd withheld and/or censored 98% of the Epstein files.
Really need to see Trump, Netanyahu, Thiel, Musk, Farage, Starmer, etc tortured and killed brutally over several days in a live streamed SAW film like predicament.
>>2658888
>>2658890
What? Your question is stupid on so many levels. She's testifying in congress. That has nothing to do with her previous trial which already happened resulting in her convictions.
Second you can not be compelled to testify at your own trial. The 5th amendment gives you the right to not take the stand at all and to refuse to answer any question if you do.
>>2658894
Not really. It has to do partially with things that were involved with her conviction, but she's not there to testify about her own case and conviction. Congress isn't a court or part of the legal system. There are three branches of government. The judicial and legislative are two separate branches.
>>2658888
>without/before testifying?
I don't get why you would make that assumption. Like if this was an appeal, this would be her second chance to testify or not to prove her innocence, and it would not mean the first trial didn't happen. I don't get why thing happening in the future, doesn't mean that similar thing didn't also happen in past.
But this is not an appeal or anything legally related to herself, this is just her getting up and answering questions of congress people just like anybody else who is called to testify before congress.
>>2658899
>she is now choosing to reveal information because it suits her. This act should be nullified by law.
Huh? You have something like the 5th amendment there called the right to silence. It seems the same except the judge is allowed to tell the jury whether they may draw and adverse inference, where as in the US the judge is required to tell they can't draw any adverse inferences from a defendant invoking the 5th.
>>2658900
>If you're on trial, you leave it all on the playing field.
No you don't lol. That's what the 5th amendment is about. Obviously anyone isn't going to say anything that makes them seem guilty.
>Double jeopardy is a thing, so double safehousing should also be.
I don't get what you mean exactly.
>>2658904
>if you plead the 5th, then you shut the fling fuck up all the way to the gallows my son.
You can selectively choose to answer or not answer any question if you plead the 5th to it. The only difference, is if you choose to use it to not testify, then the prosecution doesn't get to cross-examine you. But if you testify, then they get to cross-examine you and you can choose to plead the 5th to any of their questions if you choose.
>>2658917
>let's be honest, all these loopholes and caveats of law are only afforded to the elites, so why the fuck are you here defending them?
No, it's just standard court stuff. Whether the jury will really not draw an adverse inference is on them. Same thing, the judge may instruct the jury that some statement given or evidence already presented is inadmissible and then they tell the jury to disregard it, but of course nobody can just erase their memory like that.
I'm not defending anything. You asked for an explanation and I gave you one.
>>2658913
>you should not be allowed to selectively tell the truth,
How would you enforce that.
>The purpose of being brought before a court is to tell the truth,
No it's not. The purpose of a trial is for the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt you committed the crime(s) they are charging you with. The defendant doesn't have to do anything but show up, but obviously presenting a good defense is the smartest move.
>you should not be given more than one chance to do this.
You'd always have the chance to present new evidence if you have it. Like you could reveal after you've been convicted of murder that you had an accomplice. Like as long as you are a living breathing human capable of communication you could always tell the truth where you didn't before. Yeah, you only get a new chance for trial if it is judged there was something that can overturn your previous conviction at which point the prosecutor can decide to try you again or not.
>>2658930>How would you enforce that.I lock up the people i don't like
>>2658865
>>2658890
>>2658905
>>2658917
>da joos
I despise Israel and Zionism with all my being but can we not start tolerating people just using "Jew" as a slur and boogeyman for everything and anything?
>>2658955
>>2658957
why don't you just stick to /pol/?
>>2658963
Fuck off retard
>>2658963
What could you even gain posting on a Marxist website as some kind of Nazi?
Saw the party political broadcast for the Conservatives today on ITV, Badenoch just straight up says they're for slashing the welfare budget "in order to make work pay".
24% of people who voted Labour at the last general election now plan to
vote Green or Lib Dem.
0% of those who voted Reform at the last election now plan to vote Labour.
Sorry brothers and sisters but I can't read theory anymore.
I used to get through approximately 80 pages a day on average but for the past week I've started falling asleep 5 minutes after any time I touch a book…
>>2659086What were your last reads?
What are you fucking spazzes on about now?
>>2659086Reading is overrated. Understanding is what's important.
Better to understand 8 pages than to read 800 pages.
Tariq Ali and Novara Media must be dealt with.
here are some comments from gerrard winstanley (1649-52) concerning freedom, landlords and the rich:
<And that this Civil Propriety is the Curse, is manifest thus, Those that Buy and Sell Land, and are landlords, have got it either by Oppression, or Murder, or Theft; and all landlords lives in the breach of the Seventh and Eighth Commandements, Thous shalt not steal, nor kill […] Take notice, That England is not a Free People, till the Poor that have no Land, have a free allowance to dig and labour the Commons, and so live as Comfortably as the Landlords that live in their Inclosures.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/winstanley/1649/levellers-standard.htm<But all rich men live at ease, feeding and clothing themselves by the labours of other men, not by their own; which is their shame, and not their nobility; for it is a more blessed thing to give than to receive. But rich men receive all they have from the labourer’s hand, and what they give, they give away other men’s labours, not their own. Therefore they are not righteous actors in the earth.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/winstanley/1652/law-freedom/introduction.htmi have in other places compared this to locke's later writings concerning the enclosure of property from the commons as a means of private appropriation; what today is referred to as "homesteading" as a theory of legitimate property rights. anti-landlord rhetoric equally continues in the british radical tradition, such as in the work of smith (1776), who also speaks against capitalists as destructive to society:
<As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch06.htm<But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htmi would then connect winstanley, to locke, to smith.
>>2658993if you are still taxed the same, then cutting benefits for the unemployed makes no difference, except perhaps that it will shrink the market due to less spending, leading to higher prices for workers, and vagrancy for the unemployed, of course.
>Venezuela’s Delcy Rodríguez assured US of cooperation before Maduro’s capture
>Exclusive: sources say powerful figures in the regime secretly told US and Qatari officials they would welcome Maduro’s departureBefore the US military snatched Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, earlier this month, Delcy Rodríguez and her powerful brother pledged to cooperate with the Trump administration once the strongman was gone, four sources involved at high levels with the discussions told the Guardian.
Rodríguez, who was sworn in on 5 January as acting president to replace Maduro, and her brother Jorge, the head of the national assembly, secretly assured US and Qatari officials through intermediaries ahead of time that they would welcome Maduro’s departure, according to the sources.
The communications between US officials from Delcy Rodríguez, who was then Maduro’s vice-president, began in the fall and continued after Trump and Maduro spoke in a crucial phone call in late November, the Guardian has learned, in which Trump insisted that Maduro leave Venezuela. Maduro rejected the demand.
By December, one American who was involved told the Guardian that Delcy Rodríguez told the US government she was ready: “Delcy was communicating ‘Maduro needs to go.’
“She said, ‘I’ll work with whatever is the aftermath,’” another person familiar with the messages said.
The sources say Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state and national security adviser, at first a skeptic about working with regime elements, came to believe that Delcy Rodríguez’s promises were the best way to prevent chaos once Maduro was gone.
The pledge of cooperation by Delcy and Jorge Rodríguez before the Maduro raid has not been previously reported. In October, the Miami Herald reported on abortive negotiations via Qatar, in which Delcy offered to act as a transitional government chief if Maduro stepped down.
Reuters reported on Sunday that Diosdado Cabello,the powerful Venezuela interior minister, who controls police and security forces, had also been in discussions with the US at a point months before the Maduro operation.
All the sources say there was a fine distinction to the agreement by Delcy Rodríguez: while the Rodríguez family promised to assist the US once Maduro was gone, they did not agree to actively help the US to topple him. The sources insist this was not a coup engineered against Maduro by the Rodríguez siblings.
Hours after the raid, Trump appeared to confirm the talks. He told the New York Post that Delcy Rodríguez was onboard. “We’ve spoken to her numerous times, and she understands, she understands.”
The Venezuelan government did not respond to emailed questions concerning this story. The White House did not respond to detailed questions.
There were many official talks between Trump officials and the Maduro-led Venezuelan government happening on top of the backchannel conversations.
Maduro himself met with Ric Grenell, a top Trump aide, just 10 days after Trump’s inauguration, to discuss US prisoners, who were quickly released.
Key Trump aides continued official talks with Jorge and Delcy Rodríguez quite often, to coordinate, for example, the bi-weekly flights of Venezuelans deported from the US, according to two sources familiar with the talks. There was a barrage of issues that had to be solved: where the deportation flights would land, the status of Venezuelans imprisoned in El Salvador and political prisoners that could be released.
Meanwhile Delcy Rodríguez retained very close personal ties with Qatar, where members of the ruling family considered her a friend, according to sources familiar with their relationship. Qatar, a key ally of the US, donated a $400m luxury jet for Trump’s use in an unprecedented gift from a foreign country to a president. It used the good will it had in Trump’s White House to open more doors for Rodríguez in secret negotiations, two of the sources said.
As the Miami Herald reported in October, Rodríguez tried to propose a transition government, led by her, that would rule Venezuela if Maduro agreed to a prearranged retirement in a presumed safe-haven. The plan fell through, and Rodríguez fiercely denounced the story, but key Americans began to think she was far from a two-dimensional dogmatic leader.
Those who know her describe a figure with disarming quirks that help her form bonds easily. She drinks champagne, has a private ping-pong coach and a tendency to challenge foreign dignitaries to games.
By October, sources say, in secret, even the Americans who were most aggressive against Maduro were open to working with her.
One factor was her promise to work with American oil, and her acquaintance with Americans in the oil business. “Delcy is the most committed to working with US oil,” an ally of hers said.
The sources said Mauricio Claver-Carone, a former Trump special envoy for Latin America who still had the ear of Marco Rubio despite being out of government, was one key backer.
The main goal for the US was stability once Maduro was out, given the predictions of civil war and chaos. Another of the sources said “the biggest thing was trying to avoid a failed state”.
It wasn’t until late fall that Delcy Rodríguez and her brother actually engaged in discussions with the US behind Maduro’s back.
Maduro spoke to Trump on the phone in November, and by the next week it was clear Maduro would not leave.
For Delcy Rodríguez it was a delicate dance. At the same time they made the offer, the sources say she did not agree to actively betray Maduro. “She feared him,” said one official familiar with the events.
When the US attack helicopters flew into Caracas in early January, Delcy Rodríguez was nowhere to be found. Rumors spread that she had fled to Moscow, but two sources say she was on Margarita Island, a Venezuelan vacation spot.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/22/delcy-rodriguez-capture-maduro-venezuelaNew
Paraphrasing Emily Thornberry on Question Time tonight; "The free market will protect us from Trump doing anything too crazy."
Name one difference between the Labour right and the Jimmy Saville gang from 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
>>2660287Loathsome parasite; the political imagination of these creatures reaches only so far as the interests of British business. Her stance is proof in and of itself that the Labour party is depleted of the collective will to do anything but manage its own regression in government, its economic and foreign policy being reduced to the collusion of state actors who lack all capacity to renegotiate the terms of their success having been handed an electoral majority on the basis of their opposition's disfavour. Thornberry clutching to the slogan of the free-market is a sign of absolute desperation in which she can drum up no other sentiment than that on which all other parties within Parliament base their support, namely through an appeal to the central strut which has shaped economic governance since Thatcher.
>>2660349>>2660287Contrast this to Polanski's latest soundbite-ridden video in which the appeal is made to potential swing voters on the grounds of the circumstances of their ailing petty individual fortunes, being differentiated from the pro-capitalist sentiment of Reform only by means of a simple verbatim acknowledgement of the present failure in the nation's tax system and its disparagement towards its own bourgeoisie, which if ever it were in power, the party must as well soon reconicle with.
The present situation is so pathetic and dismal because for all its disinterest and resentment towards its own ruling class, the British worker still clings in the same fashion as Thornberry to that system of wealth in which it is complicit in its own self-exploitation. Even as its social order is ground to the most threadbare distinctions in poverty, the voting mass can conjure no resistance save an electoral support of a collective who, fearing relegation of their personal wealth, must be appealed to on the basis of bourgeois individual self-interest.
>>2660382Laughibly as this occurs the present and growing rot in British capitalist society is being distilled into an ever potent mixture of extremist nationalism on the right, driven by a political class seeking to carve larger portions for itself from what little it has left to contend with, dividing the spoils among their supporters in the bourgeoisie and bribing their petite-bourgeois sycophants with what morsels fall from the table.
This churning of British society, in which the present democratic order is being overturned in favour of a support for more exploitative economic measures, inevitably has one result. None care to see it, and those that do merely evoke the need for a more just society based on the same principles of class rule that have led to current circumstances being what they are.
Any economic crash would be like adding yeast to the growing ferment of conflict within society. Life in Britain is so unfathomably grim, precisely because in the course of this decline there is no measure by which to check or retard the momentum with which it descends. Workers are expected to drown in this system of misfortune in order to serve the dumb social logic by which society is ordered: profit.
Britain does not have free markets in the sense most other countries do. Thatcherism was a giant con that unleashed petty corruption on a mass scale.
The free market is of course always a falsehood, but nowhere is it more false than in Britain. Britain is of the Russian rather than the European, Antipodean, Asian or American typology. All Britain's anomalies come back to this. The skeleton key to Britain is that it is post soviet without ever having been soviet.
TONIGHT 7PM!
*Grassroots Left Slate: “Why we are fighting for Maximum Member Democracy”
With Zarah Sultana, Sophie Wilson, Ian Spencer, Mel Mullings and many more good comrades and speakers. Naturally (!) with time for questions from the floor
Register now:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/hXQ6bmgJQVSiwBjC5Wx3ZQPlease sort the Grassroots Left slate for the Your Party CEC elections!
>>2660686I meant support. FUUUUUCK
>>2660422>extremist nationalismits not nationalism, its racism
these people have no issue with international capital, or even international labour, its the aesthetic revulsion of black and brown bodies in england that impassions them. an actual nationalist fascist like oswald moseley sought to limit markets to allow for domestic autarky, clashing with conservative leaders of his day like enoch powell, by promoting keynesianism, for example. of course, it makes sense, since moseley was an ex-labour man. there is no "nationalism" of any theoretical character today, its simply plain racism.
>Life in Britain is so unfathomably grimhow very self-aware of you… im sure africa should be sending you money cos your life is so bad.
>>2660752in what context?
>>2660768what? so you dont think the far right's sensibility is simply plain racism, or you think life in the UK is "unfamothably grim", despite objective living conditions?
>>2660716you have spoken the actual truth, they are just racist neoliberals.
>>2660756i think he meant using the 'black and brown bodies' phrase which is pretty "college radicalism of the American variation" strain.
>>2660776It's not even that it sounds woke, it doesn't, it sounds like something a Victorian anthropologist would say.
>>2660775He's right though.
fuck off retard >>2660882so the far right arent racist?
or britain is "unfathomably grim"?
which point do you disagree with me on?
>>2660775life in the UK is objectively unfathomably grim.
you gibe that "africa should be sending him money" but many africans do, in fact, live a better existence than britons for a fairly obvious reason: people judge their lives relative to yesterday, not relative to an objective yard stick. many african countries can look back at a decade of explosive economic development and improvement in living standards, while the average /leftybritpol/ poster either looks back nostalgically on the days when he was thinking about killing himself to the backdrop of Theresa May's inevitable Thatcher-length premiership and mass surveillance projects.
>>2660892>life in the UK is objectively unfathomably grim. how?
>many africans do, in fact, live a better existence than britonsi wonder why you dont move to africa, then.
>>2660912
so life is "unfathomably grim" because its cloudy and people go down the pub? you need to get better mental health.
>>2660913>you need to get better mental healthHow do you retards find this site
>>2660925keep slitting your wrists to the winter drizzle
>>2660932Fuck off to 4chan you literal infant
>>2660954you are the one crying that the sky is grey
>>2660978There's more than one poster responding to your credulous takes
>>2660986again, your assertion is that the UK is "unfathomably grim" because of clouds and pubs. you need to sort out your priorities if this is the state of your melancholy. my "take" is simply contrary to this juvenile hysteria, of which pretends to legitimacy by a misery seeking company. you are miserable - so what? i dont have to be.
>>2661008What a comfortable life you must live if you think someone complaining about the living conditions in modern Britain can be reduced to its weather. Doubly so by exchanging your political consciousness for that servile language by which social conditions are reduced to "mental health", you absolute fucking clown.
>>2661012>>2661008Again, that you retards chose to post here at all is beyond me.
>>2661012>living conditionslets go to the exact explanation of why life in the UK is "unfathomably grim":
>>2660912>Constant overcast and rain combined with an alcoholic populationthis is what you are defending, and now you double back in disbelief of its reduction of life to the cheapest of taste - yet dont forget that this is the foolishness you held loyalty to be nonsensically attacking me.
>mental healthyes, get help. it will benefit us both.
>>2661018Yes mate, half the country roils beneath the depredations of class rule but anyone who disagrees with you is mentally ill.
>>2661018Go back to posting about "black and brown bodies" you miserable fucking cretin
>>2660900>i wonder why you dont move to africa, then.if you wonder that, you have completely missed the point.
>>2661022people who languish in misery are mentally ill; those sensitive fiends who commit suicide on a grey sunday as a petty revenge against the world. life is for the living, so i dont hold the delicate pretensions to a peurile tragedy of complaining about the weather as the basis of national sentiment.
>>2661024ah, so im being attacked for being anti-racist
the truth finally comes out
>>2661027>life in the UK is so bad, africa is better<okay, so move to africa>you dont get it…im only trying to help you help yourself.
>>2661030i will try again, slowly this time:
africans are happy because they go from
poor to
less poor britons are miserable because they go from
not poor to
more poor this is (with some extraneous bits cut out) the hedonic treadmill. it is not enough that things be just sort of all-right, they need to be getting
better. britain is a shithole not because it is bad in an absolute sense, but because it is stagnant or declining from what was once a sort-of-okay position.
the person who always finishes last feels great when they finish 3rd-to-last, the person who always finishes in the top 3 is miserable with the same result.
you have no answer to this. you have no interest even in contemplating the problem.
>>2661033>britain is a shithole not because it is bad in an absolute sense, but because it is stagnantright, so its not "unfathomably grim", its just in decline.
thanks for agreeing.
>you have no answer to thiswhat? i hope things get better.
what other answer is there?
>>2661034decline of this sort is unfathomable to anyone raised in a first world country.
the answer is to emigrate. just not to africa, unless you've got a very solid plan indeed.
>>2660892>while the average /leftybritpol/ poster either looks back nostalgically on the days when he was thinking about killing himself to the backdrop of Theresa May's inevitable Thatcher-length premiership and mass surveillance projects.I do miss them times though. :(
Fuck me i hate this place.
Actually dire.
Send help.
>>2661039well, i have faith that we can make things better.
plus, as an uncultured "englishman" (scouser), i have no foreign language skills or skilled labour in general to offer other nations, so i will sink as a statistic of decline, i suppose 🤷♂️🫡
>>2661028>"Anybody who disagrees with my petite-bourgoeis sensibilities is a mentally ill poor racist"Please fuck off
>>2661055just stop replying and the torment will end. 👍
>>2661831Dude what in the complete fuck?? That is fucking batshit and he's being 100% serious. That's actually terrifying good god
>>2661831What are they actually being charged with though?
>>2659466most books are just vehicles for ego and can be summed up in a few bullet points
>>2661831Has Greta spoken since her arrest? Didn't they force her to watch snuff videos?
>>2649865and yet Cromwell's Republic only lasted 11 years. It was one of the shortest lived Republics. And to this day bongs still haven't become a proper bourgeois Republic. Sure y'all are capitalist in terms of your mode of production, but a fucking
constitutional monarchy. Come on now. Get with the times.
>>2661931didn't he oversee the conquest of Ireland?
And wasn't he also pals with the jews?
>treating others like animalshmmmm is there a link here?
>>2661931cromwell's republic (1649-1660) only fell because his heir was a failson, but the restoration was also countered by the glorious revolution (1688) which granted us the bill of rights (1689) as an ultimate constitution, over 100 years before the USA had its own bill of rights (the first 10 constitutional ammendments) in 1791, and a century before france's declaration of the rights of man (1789). our bill of rights also gives supremacy to the legislature as a means of democratic sovereignty in the parliament, while the US is currently suffering from its separation of powers, between the congress and president. its hard to know who's supposed to be in charge!
>>2661935luv jews
ate catholics
simple as
>>2661831>twitter expert<lives with his mumcouldn't make it up, lmfao.
That's fucked though, i hope he wigs out and materially deals with these zio freaks at least.
>>2662125>Christopher Douglas Emms is wanted for allegedly conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Specifically, conspiring to violate United States sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“DPRK” or “North Korea”) by working with an American citizen to illegally provide cryptocurrency and blockchain technology services to the DPRK.madlad.
>>2661931>>2662111i do agree though, throw off the norman yoke…
looking at the respective systems of government, we can compare the bicameral legislature of the UK and US. the parliament of the UK is composed of the house of commons (elected) and house of lords (appointed), with the house of lords being subordinate to the house of commons, and so the prime minister as the sovereign leader of the country. in the US they have the congress as parliament, composed of the house of representatives and the senate, where all positions are elected. the leader of the representatives is the "speaker of the house" (i.e. the prime minister) which is elected biennially by all members, and who does not even have to be part of congress (like the president, for absolute purposes of impartiality). the house of representatives writes up bills which are then to be approved by the senate (limited in its occupation by 100 members, while the house of lords currently has over 800 members… a soaring victory for the USA in this case). the senate as the upper house has more power than the parliament, by being able to block bills from being passed, thus placing sovereignty in the senate rather than the parliament. if a bill passes, then it is sent to the president to "veto" it by his signature, completing the chain of command. of course, this is a precise notion of a constitutional monarchy, just without its hereditary title (although, did you know that the US wanted to make george washington a hereditary monarch?) the difference in the UK is that while the monarch (who, unlike in america, does not count as "executive", and is symbolically submissive to parliament) is tasked for guidance on law, but has no "veto" power. the irrelevant house of lords itself has no ultimate authority, and even "conservative" politicians like nigel farage have called for their abolition. i think we ought to abolish the monarchy as well, since it functionally serves no purpose to our political state.
>>2662136he is just embodying the spirit of the free market…
AGAINST american imperialism 🫢
the third temple church of england (of his majesty, clifford jefferson) has brought to my attention the "statutes of mortmain" (1279-90) which reveals an intriguing legal history concerning the possession of land in england. the statutes ("statutum de viris religiosis" and "quia emptores") maintain that no land ought to be possessed by "corporations" (e.g. ecclesiastical bodies) and that they should remain forever the property of the state, so as to receive feudal tribute by their rents (a good piece of history concerning the norman yoke). what is most interesting to me is the designation of the corporation in law, "mortmain" ("dead hands"). i initially considered this continuous of the "mortgage" ("death-pledge", but what some translate as "death grip") which also constitutes corporate property relations. conjecture by edward cooke (as told by william blackstone, 1765) reveals that the belief was that the person of propriety in land, if they were incorporated, where thought of as being "dead", since they had impersonality, rather than a living status. thus, the "person" of corporate ownership is dead, rather than alive (i.e. "mortmain"). the third temple church of england sees then that the corporate structure of the US proves its illegitimacy, and so belongs to the living (i.e. the sovereign of england).
we may also see how church property, initially held as state property, became privatised following the english reformation following the "act of supremacy" (1534), leading to the anglican church being headed by the monarch, and so church property was confiscated by the state to lend out to noblemen. marx describes this as integral to the process of "primitive accumulation" (capital vol. 1, chapters 26-31). common agreement also sees that the status of mortmain holding was resolved by henry viii's confiscation of church property and its re-conversion. so then, the statutes of mortmain (1279-90) begin a process of attempting to preserve feudal structures against corporations, but this cannot hold, and so leads to capitalism (1534-)
queen elizabeth i, on 11 july 1596, sent a letter to the mayor of london for the explusion of africans ("negars" and "blackamoors") in england (who of course, acted as servants). complaints as to the idleness of the poor imply that the africans were accused of taking jobs away from the english (such as the case with the irish during their mass immigration into the UK from the 1840s onwards, as noted by friedrich engels, in 1845 - and marx in 1869-70). here is the letter:
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/elizabeth-monarchy/open-letter-by-elizabeth-i/of course, the employment of black servants continued, and was largely exported to colonies in america (1607-). black slaves existed in england from the time of john lok's importation of 5 slaves (1555), yet slavery was eventually ruled unjust on english soil, as i have previously demonstrated in the case of somerset vs stewart (1772), which as noam chomsky relays, caused a reaction in the colonies to gain independence, only achieving abolition in 1863-5. from the time of lok to elizabeth, to the colonies (1555, 1596, 1607), we see how attitudes and institutions change. it is said that the concerns over idleness and vagrancy led to the poor laws of 1601, which established poor relief (benefits) by different rates.
>>2662125>>2662133Brit does thing in North Korea. What British or North Korean law did he violate? None to my knowledge. The Burger Reich declares laws for the entire world to follow and then Burger journalists say you violate "the" rules of "the" law about "the" sanctions or whatever.
>>2662237Oh anon, didn't you know? America is the perfectly moral defender of international order and the internationally beloved world's police!
following the black death in england (1347-51), wages rose with the increased demand of labour, which was in shorter supply. this was the biggest wage rise in european history within its time-span (some figures stating the doubling of real wages from 1350 to 1450). various attempts to subvert this inflation of wages were authorised, such as the "ordinance of labourers" (1349) and "statute of labourers" (1351), which set a maximum wage to pre-plague levels, and compelled all able-bodied persons under 60 to work. these laws were apparently poorly-enforced and the demand for labour too powerful. many factors added to existing conditions however, such as wage caps, high taxes during the hundreds years' war (1337-1453) and political instability, which lead to the english peasants' revolt of 1381.
the revolt was led by jack straw, john ball and wat tyler, who sieged the tower of london, killing many royal officials. the revolt is said to be momentous of the economic effects previously described, which led to higher status of labourers, but what was sought to be curbed by the ruling class, such as the introduction of "fresh laws" (1363) which exempted those of a lower class to purchase luxury items, even if they could afford it. this all added to the feudal war of lords against serfs, or of land against labour. in this time also, before the death of king edward (1377), a poll tax was enforced on the population (a tax which rousseau in 1755 is comparable to slavery, but which in itself, taxes per head, and so it is literally a tax for existing). it was (per head) enforced at 4 pence - or £25 today - for any person over 14 years old. it did raise £22,000, or £22 million today, for the war effort. another poll tax was ammended in 1379 but evasion caused a lack of funds, resulting in a total of £18,600, the goal being £50,000. a third poll tax was acted upon in 1380, charging 12 pence per head for any person over 15 - attempting to raise £66,000 of the massive £160,000 debt the government owed. this was obviously more unpopular and more people evaded, leading to interrogations by commissioners sent to towns in 1381. it was a very tense time, full of corruption, with some even fearing that the english might side with french invaders.
part of these tensions lent to the protests of various labourers in conjunction with guilds, called "the great rumour" (1377), who striked from work and demanded rights. all of this culminated into the violence of 30 may, 1381, where the demand for unpaid poll taxes in brentwood lead to widespread rebellion, with its leaders (having inspiration from religious reformers like john wycliffe and john ball) sought a new way of living, including lower taxes and an end of serfdom in england. following organisation from essex, suffolk and norfolk, rebels marched toward the capital in june. john ball was a leading speaker to the crowd, promoting loyalty to what was perceived as a righteous king (richard, a child at this time), and discontent against the king's advisers (namely, richard's uncles who had de facto power over the crown). on 13 june 1381, richard agreed to come to the crowd, but only by a distance of the river thames. negotiations could not begin because the rebels demanded him come ashore, yet he refused, so retreated to the tower of london.
the rebels were able to enter london because of access by the bridge, and as soon as they did, they tore apart prisons, letting criminals be part of their march. what is shameful however is that along with this was also resentful attacks against flemish immigrants, who many of the peasants saw as competitors. there was also the burning of books from legal offices. the rebellion had become an unrestrained riot. in houses of luxury, everything was destroyed, and nothing was claimed to be stolen, with the claim of the rebels being "zealots for truth and justice, not thieves and robbers". the rampage continued all through the night, with the next day also resulting in the arson of the houses of political officials, with prisons opened (such as in the storming of the bastille in the french revolution). yet more flemish immigrants were murdered with great enthusiasm. all of this ended with the boy-king richard appearing to the crowd, submitting to their demands to end serfdom in england by drawing up charters of all kinds (among the demands was "that there should be no law within the realm save the law of Winchester" which apparently refers to self-regulated village life). while this occured, around 400 rebels entered the tower and killed all targets, though not indiscriminately, such as leaving lady joan (richard's sister) alive after humiliating her.
the next day, rebels still patrolled london, and many were also gathered, so richard went to wat tyler to inquire upon why they had not yet left, with tyler becoming arrogant in the presence of richard, not for his pretense of equality, but in his manner, which eventually led to him being stabbed by a royal squire. after this was the threat of open violence, but richard rushed to the crowd, begging for peace and retreat… a wider revolt also occured outside london; all over england with little resistance from officials and the unleashing of revenge. after 15 june, protests were quelled, leading to relative stability a fortnight later.
on 30 june, richard commanded the former serfs into their previous positions, revoking the charters drawn up under duress on 2 july, betraying the rebels in their demands. the cause of the rebellion was seen as greedy officials by the parliament, leading to a reduction of the war effort by the revoking of the poll tax in england. although serfdom was not abolished, it began its general decline, along with the rising wages of labourers in this period.
>The speech allegedly given by John Ball, one of the leaders of the English Peasants Revolt, at Blackheath on the march on London, June 1381.<When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondsmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who would have had any bond and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may, if ye will, cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty. I counsel you therefore well to bethink yourselves, and to take good hearts unto you, that after the manner of a good husband that tilleth his ground, and riddeth out thereof such evil weeds as choke and destroy the good corn, you may destroy first the great lords of the realm, and after, the judges and lawyers, and questmongers, and all other who have undertaken to be against the commons. For so shall you procure peace and surety to yourselves in time to come; and by dispatching out of the way the great men, there shall be an equality in liberty, and no difference in degrees of nobility; but like dignity and equal authority in all things brought in among you.https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cast_off_the_Yoke_of_Bondagethe "yoke of bondage" refers to the bible verse (gal 5:1) of attaining freedom through Christ, but the motif of a "norman yoke" was already present, beginning in the work of the monk, orderic vitalis ("historia ecclesiastica", 1114-1141). it is also continued in the text "le mireur a justices" (1290), which is translated and published during the english civil war (1642), and becomes a component part of revolutionary propaganda, such as in the writings of john lilburne (1645) and gerrard winstanley (1649). it survives this anachronism all the way into the american revolution, with thomas jefferson even speaking of it, in relation to the view that the normans had imposed feudalism on the anglo-saxon peoples. john ball's 1381 address to the people then makes the "yoke of bondage" all the more resonant, as a claim to the freedom of england.
labour are about to do the funniest, bleakest thing possible. (have the NEC tell Andy Burnham he can run in the by-election, then smugly tell him that there's an all BAME or all-women shortlist in the seat, then immediately get attacked by Reform for anti-white/male discrimination.)
>>2664149eyup is too based to post here
>>2664149sounds like he gets off on it tbh
>>2664149Oppose genocide and you may well get your door broken down and beaten to a pulp by bloodthirsty pigs or thrown in prison for years without ever seeing trial.
State of the country we live in is absolutely fucking mental.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5y7edg169oDavey of the Lib Dems peddling war bonds as a policy solution in raising state capital for military expenditure. Almost every party is now signalling its cross interest in reviewing favourably its defence agenda in order to win the support of security officials, whilst presenting to their voters an image which fuses nationalist slogans with economic leadership.
>>2664645Not even the Greens are in any real opposition to this except on those grounds by which they must appeal to their supporters, namely the scrapping of Trident.
Abbott's dreary article from a year ago in which she simply propounds the defeated sentiments of her anti-war coalition reads now like a parody, as all the capacity of the British left in mustering the will to oppose this state affairs has been reduced to hot air.
>>2664648
Social contradictions in the distribution of wealth based on generational differences in the value of labor; savings and investment capacities for those who enjoyed the medium growth economy pre-covid are vastly different to those who must endure the low wage low employment decline currently underway.
It is basically the legacy of austerity.
Britain needs Council Communism.
Think about it logically. It's the only brand of Marxist ideology that could work here.
>>266487790 year old Doris screaming for the heads of the rich at the local council meeting
>>2664877if someone were to publish a less tosserish version of the communist manifesto, that would probably get the plebs on side with it
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/01/24/jqyr-j24.htmlPalestinian activist detained at Heathrow under the terror act for political repression in the US
Half decent WSWS article on Reform's ascendancy:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/01/23/yhmd-j23.htmlFar-right Reform UK, leading polls, prepares a cabinet of war and austerity for British capitalism
<The defection of leading Conservative Party figure Robert Jenrick to the far-right Reform UK is the latest step in leader Nigel Farage’s preparations for government. Jenrick was sacked by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch on January 15 after it emerged that he was plotting to leave the Tories and was unveiled by Farage as a member of his party later that day.>>2665102It's long past the point of this being up for debate
>>2665102Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, is widely described as a far-right or right-wing populist party, positioned to the right of the Conservatives, focusing heavily on anti-immigration, cultural traditionalism (like opposing multiculturalism, promoting "British values"), and economic nationalism with promises of tax cuts, while also drawing criticism for its populist stunts and potential shift in UK politics towards the far-right spectrum. Critics highlight its strong anti-immigration stance, opposition to green policies, and populist appeal, while supporters see it as a powerful force challenging the political establishment, though some academics suggest "populist radical right" might be a more precise term."populist radical right" e.g. "far right but might be in government and we don't want to deal with the implications of that."
>>2665131>>2665148come on now
he's a pressure release, shit stirring puppet
>>2665148>focusing heavily on anti-immigrationhalf of his crew are not white and or English
>>2665148There is a finely honed and well practiced machine in place, developed over decades to quell and disarm any actual right wing uprisings, maintained and instigated by the 'you know whos'. This is just a manifestation of their many parlour tricks.
Farage is not a leader. He will never be PM, he is a talking head and the only place he will lead anyone is up the garden path.
>>2665315I call it 'swinging the pendulum'
>>2665283The entire party is a circus act driven by the underlying ideological zeal of opportunistic nationalists, orchestrated simply for those ends of British Capital. Their inevitable contradictory platform of attempting to depress labor costs through continued migration versus cracking down on illegal immigration and asylum claims will manifest in the abomination of an ever extremist faction within its own supporter base, something those within the FSU and Advance are currently trying to achieve.
Essentially it is the opening of Pandora's box; vultures irrespective of ethnicity have realised what Reform represents and are circling, setting to work burying themselves in their own discriminative rhetoric.
>>2665373>opportunistic nationalistsusually nationalists want what is best for what they consider to be their country.
And before you say Thatcher, she was in bed with the 4x2's as well.
>>2665379>usually nationalists want what is best for what they consider to be their country.Yes.
Greed.
>>2665382Scottish nationalists are greedy?
Welsh nationalists are greedy?
>>2665393
And China strip mining africa in exchange for some magic beans? What do you call that?
>>2665389Celtic nationalism is different from British nationalism. It's more like misleadingly named independence-ism.
Ironically the SNP were oil greedy in the 1070s but their greed would've saved both Scotland and Britain if they'd succeed in leaving pre-Thatcher.
>>2665389Their electoral strategies are based on promoting regional business interests to the detriment of workers, on the premise that growth can be achieved through the same exploitative system of wealth through their own legislative chamber.
As the other anon said, it is a mutual system of plunder.
>>2665398Our economy is basically a farm, and we are the animals. We are born, we become debt slaves from student loans, then we get a mortgage and pay all of that off until we die and then the state takes 40% of it back. It's just straight usery all the way down.
>>2665400Animals cannot speak, slaves can.
>>2665405yeah, unless it is to protest against israel, then you can shush your slave mouth
>>2665398This isn't true, the SNP and Plaid aren't particularly pro-business and the interest of regional business is usually served by going for the UK wide market. They promote public sector interests (which, as a good Marxist knows, isn't the same as being socialist)
The basic class character of devolution is driven by non-business "elite" interests.
>>2665429>They promote public sector interests Such as state subsidies?
>>2665431no, not really. more stuff like: not doing all the NHS reforms that happened in England because they're a pain in the dick and neither management nor frontline staff were particularly enthusiastic about them. you can, of course, read this as a good and left-wing thing, and empirically the NHS reform merry-go-round in England was stupid, but it's really a case of "accidentally correct" - the other side of this coin is that Glasgow's gender clinic has a 240 year waiting list and the response is "lol lmao" because dealing with that is also a pain in the dick (oh, ha ha.) for management.
or, more prosaically, higher public sector wages and centralization of services (like police scotland)
scotland is not a colony, but it has the admin structure of a colony. to say that devolution serves the interest of society's administrators would be more apt: the church, the legal system, the education system, the healthcare system, the civil service, etc. their interests are superficially more aligned with yours than those of the outright bourgeoisie, but they're both willing to sell you out to said bourgeoisie and also willing to let you die in a ditch if it's easier for them.
>>2665593>nationalistwhich nation though?
>>2663886it was a radical time in general, post-napoleonic britain (1815-), politically and theoretically. according to different sources, the first english use of the term "liberal" in its contemporary context began during this period (1816), especially in response to the corn laws (1815-46) which put tarriffs on imported grain (alongside this conflict with free trade was also the repealment of income tax in 1816). among the antagonists to the corn laws was ricardo (1817-22) who instead argued for free trade, by means of "comparative advantage" (a notion borrowed from adam smith's previous work in 1776, which stipulates a balance of international trade as a means to create more wealth). the corn laws only raised prices, and were finally repealed by the prime minister sir robert peel (c. 1834-46), previously home secretary (c. 1822-30), in 1846 (on tarriffs, it is misunderstood that friedrich list in 1841 promoted the ends of economic nationalism by imposing tarriffs on liberal economies, when in fact, list promoted a balance of trade the same as smith and ricardo. as an economic historian, he simply understood that trade cannot be free between unequal powers, and so a sufficient national industry is prerequisite for international trade. montchretien in 1615, wrote in his treatise on political economy of the same idea, from a duly mercantilist perspective, the same thomas mun in the 1640s, and petty in 1662. the "american school" of political economy of the 19th century had the same aspirations).
sir robert peel himself was somewhat of a marginally radical fellow, despite being one of the co-founders of the contemporary conservative party (1834-). his father, robert peel, was associates with the socialist manufacturer robert owen, who in his writings spoke extensively as to the blamelessness of the criminal, and the blame which society has in making crime. his alternative suggestion was a type of state-operated education system (what later becomes adopted through general education, e.g. "kindergarten", and what developed in the prussian education model in the post-napoleonic era). he also suggested a force of crime prevention in society (what soon after becomes the metropolitan police system in the UK, created by sir robert peel in 1829 as home secretary, and of which the principles were not the punishment of crime, but its prevention, with guidebooks on this topic, e.g. "the principles of policing, 1829" distributed to policemen). peel also inadvertantly began a massive working class movement of the "chartists" (1832-48), after legislating the "great reform act" of 1832, which expanded the rights of citizens to vote with greater representation (which kirkup in his "history of socialism", 1890, sees as comparable to bourgeois revolution, which solidified the supremacy of the middle class). reactionaries of this time such as thomas carlyle repudiated the notion of "chartism" by formal polemics, while the chartists themselves wrote out a manifesto highlighting their demands, such as the right for any [sane] working citizen [male] over the age of 21 the right to vote. this movement is also highlighted by marx in the manifesto (1848) as one of the movements the communists support (despite its lack of universality, which the later feminists in their struggle, expand).
relating back to robert owen, he managed his experimental commune of new lanark from 1797, which, following all of his future publications (1816-1848) sought to universalise this way of living. his followers came to be known as the "owenites" who founded cooperative societies as early as 1825 (as j.s. mill writes in his autobiography). cooperative ownership of business comes to influence in liberal circles, such as with jevons (1869) after its initial rebellion by people like mill (1825). owen also comes to theoretically influence marx by his notion of "labour money" (labour voucher), which is present in "critique of the gotha programme" (1875). the experimental commune also had its influence in the US by people such as joseph warren (1863).
during the period of owen's publishing was also the "popular political economy" of people such as thomas hodgskin (1827), one of the so-called "ricardian socialists" (ricardo, being the formaliser of the labour theory of value in 1817, having fellow disciples such as james mill, 1821, the father of j.s. mill, who contributed to the thought of marx by the notion of "productive consumption"). hodgskin can also be shown to inspire some of marx's own writings, by citation. marx's statement that labour has no value because it is not a commodity is footnoted by a reference to hodgskin, for example (capital vol. 1, chapter 19, footnote 5). the charge of ricardianism is also ascribed to hodgkinson by marx, in "theories of surplus value" (1863), as yet, noel thompson in his book "the people's science" (1984) holds that these thinkers ought to be considered "smithian socialists" ("the people's science", ch. 4), and so we can retrieve the radicalism of that previous period (1776) by conserving adam smith's political economy. indeed, both marx and engels affirm that smith conceives of the true origin of surplus value (capital vol. 2, 1885 preface). adam smith also professed a declining rate of profit, the "trinity" formula (labour, land, capital), the distinction between use-value and exchange-value, productive and unproductive labour, etc.
during the 1840s onwards was also a mass exodus of irish immigrants into england, displaced by british colonialism via the new acts of union that established the "united kingdom" (1801). engels discusses the depreciated state of the english working class due in part to this (1845), with marx adding comment in 1869-70. along with the new character of labour also came subsequent labour laws, such as various factory acts (1850-) which regulated the working day from 12 to 10 hours (12 often being the norm since 1496, where henry vii fixed working times for field labourers from 5 AM to 7-8 PM, with 2-3 hour breaks. it has of course been previously noted that wages doubled from 1350 to 1450, leading to various reaction. the act of 1833 also set a standard time of 5:30 AM to 8:30 PM, with less breaks, overturned for women and juveniles between 1844-7, setting a 10 hour day). as previously discussed also, the poor laws of elizabethan england (1601) were in place for over 2 centuries, before the system of poor relief was substitited for compelled labour in the poor houses during the 1830s, like the prison system of forced labour, equally present in american slavery. robert owen in his time also petitioned for an 8 hour working day, but adopted a 10 hour system very early on. the 8 hour working day was only achieved in the 20th century, with some seeing fordism as a prerequisite model of standardisation.
>>2665400>we become debt slaves from student loanswait til bro hears about income tax 👀😬
>>2665131reform uk are just tories in all reality
reform voters on the other hand…
the peasantry is more reactionary than the bourgeoisie
>>2665291rich browns versus poor browns
immigration is a class concept
>>2664980you cant polish a turd.
>>2666111Huge thing that needs to go is "consultants". Had a Chav working class friend who's dad went through some course to become a "consultant" and started doing "consultancy" for local Government and within 5 years my friends dad built and moved into a custom mansion that looks like pic related.
Also working back on the day with lots of people who did jobs for Local Government, and friends in Government admin jobs, heard tale after tale of brazen corruption. A type I heard often was selling land to local developer at basically cost rates, letting the developer sit on it and do nothing for a decade, then buying it back at way higher rates, thus it's basically a "legal" form of doing a payoff to your developer pal where they don't need to do anything.
I agree as well, again I hate to beat the bush, but I genuinely believe the UK needs to be federalised and turned into states where state Governments take up much of the role of councils, then you have a independent corruption commission that actually has serious teeth to throw politicians, councillers, contractors etc in jail.
The amount of bragging i've heard from HS2 contractors publicly where they said "oh yeah we charged the Government like 30x the market rates" is unreal. Everyone involved in HS2 should be in prison for fraud.
Also Farage has announced today that if he becomes PM he'll give soldiers and veterans immunity from prosecution. In effect legalising war crimes.
>>2666311The violence inherent in the system
>>2666314Curious as to what will be the pistol shot that sets off the electoral bid.
Could be members of the PLP making a leadership bid, in light of a wipeout in local council elections. Up until then his strategy may just be negotiating with senior Tory officials looking to abandon ship in exchange for cabinet positions.
Suella's dad is an Indian Goan Catholic from Kenya. Her mother is an Indian Tamil Hindu from Mauritius.
Her husband is an Ashkenazi Jew of joint Israeli and South African nationality.
She herself briefly flirted with some secular westernised Buddhist groups and swore her oath to be an MP on the Dhammapada, though it seems she has no links to any Buddhist lineage or groups today nor attends any temple.
She's also boasted about have numerous close family members who've volunteered to serve in the IDF.
My point being, what a weird mixed up clusterfuck of a family, both ethnically and religiously.
>>2666391Britain is a multicultural society: all are equally oppressed
>>2666400
Her husband is Hamish Badenoch. An old money upper class toff white British Catholic, born and raised in Wimbledon but of Scottish descent, who works managing property portfolios for a German megabank.
>>2666374>another tory joins the tories 2.0imagine my shock
>>2666391>>2666409>catholic shenanigansboris put the roman plague in our house.
never trust a papist.
>>2666426
They are service dogs. I guess if non-White blind people don't want to use them, that's their business.
john locke on wage slavery (1690):
<he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me […] slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive […] Master and servant are names as old as history […] a freeman makes himself a servant to another […] in exchange for wages […] it gives the master […] a temporary power over him […] there is another sort of servant […] slaves, who being captives […] are by the right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters […] whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htmworkers are "temporary" slaves, at war with their masters. adam smith also describes wage workers as subjected to masters (1776):
<in every part of Europe, twenty workmen serve under a master for one that is independent […] The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible […] The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch08.htm<They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch01b.htmThe UK is the most centralised country in Europe, the problem with councils is that they're nowhere near local enough and nowhere near powerful enough.
Look at the sheer area covered by Highland council (which once also included the Hebrides!!) and tell me that isn't farcical. Bin collections in Skye should not be decided in Inverness.
>>2666602How can anyone hope to change this?
All the power is in the hands of a few wealthy private school kids turned MPs who grew up together in North London and see no reason to care what happens outside the M25, let alone in the Midlands, North, or devolved nations.
>>2666563
I hate dogs too, they shit all up and down the street I live. Well maybe that's the owners fault but there wouldn't be the shit if there wasn't the dogs.
>>2666630It used to be better in the past than it is now.
Local council introduced a new bin, we have to have 4 bins now.
1 bin for general waste, 1 bin for recycling, 1 bin for organic waste, and now a new bin for food waste.
Wonder what that's all about eh?
>>2667392
Umberto Eco?
>>2666744no, dogs are clearly a form of vermin, like how cats are parasites. people think its weird to have a pet rodent, but not a miniature pet wolf that refuses to grow up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2496792/Before-dogs-mans-best-friend-humans-regarded-vermin-scientist-says.htmlive been made to feel afraid when im walking outside, because you never know when some dickhead has let his shitbull off the leash, which is more common than you would hope. i was bit by a strangers dog on a walk the other week after it was incessantly barking at me (with the owner's refusal to correct the behaviour) and after it tore through my jeans, the owner gave an insincere apology. i just kept walking. i still think about turning around booting that little pest in the head. im glad china eats dogs. a cow has never hurt anyone - but we hurt them. a despicably hypocritical, savage culture, and its inseparable from the worship of dogs.
>>2667414whatever happened to the blitz spirit?
keep calm and carry on.
>>2667635Big difference between an XL Bully and a Pomeranian
>>2667673Pomeranians are a snack, you could feed a whole family with an xl bully
>>2667673the smallest dogs are the most vicious
the bigger dogs are just more dangerous
>>2667698Completely fucking irrelevant, but there's a unique pathology in dog ownership whereby the relation the animal has to their owner is reduced to one of either an ignorant cruelty in which it is eternally disciplined or that in which it simply regards itself as the conscious expression of the owner's disturbed psychological attachments, whereby it is systematically manipulated through a babying as it serves as nothing more than a psychological substitute for that source of relief from the perpetually repressed misery of its owner.
There is fine line in animal ownership why respecting a living creatures conscious being means understanding that it does in some capacity have free will, and yet is still a product of its environment, the two not being mutually exclusive.
I say this as someone who has owned a rescue with deeply ingrained behavioural issues that many individuals simply aren't fit for the responsibility, as the suffering they effectively impinge upon their animals is one produced by their own brutal comprehension as their pet being nothing more than a form of property ownership.
>>2666820We have one bin for plastics, card, glass etc.. your typical recyclable stuff.
Then we have another bin for all the rest. This lot all goes off to be incinerated to create electricity.
Kill all pets, all of them, no one is responsible enough for them and they’re all some form of invasive species
Wonder why nobody has tried using plague as a weapon of war tbh.
We could train an army of rats to attack the bourgeoisie, infect them with all kinds of horrific diseases and then let them loose inside banks, parliament buildings, the homes of billionaires.
>>2667725biological weapons are a war crime
>>2667723ironically, the more pets there are, the more animals that have to be killed by the RSPCA
>>2667728Lots of people commit war crimes. Why shouldn't the proletariat during our class war?
>>2667725It’s called COVID 19
>>2667733no one's stopping you, mate 😂
just need to isolate the plague molecule and train rats to attack the wealthy
"eat the rich" could be a command
>>2667717Licensing would just encourage further mistreatment by promoting ownership to that of a symbol of one's wealth.
The relation an individual has with their pet is a product of their own with that of society. Ownership is eternally reduced to some violent complex in which the animal is dominated either through obedience ensured by cruelty, or the emotional manipulation of its well-being wherein it cannot express any degree of independence in behaviour without finding this itself regulated by the caprice of its owner as they smother the animal with their own disturbed mentality.
In either case the animal is an extension of the will of its owner in a manner which negates a basic freedom in its conscious existence. The latter form of emotional manipulation is typical of the younger pet owners who in viewing discipline for its barbarism instead mistakes their own malice for a form of love, producing even more disturbing behaviours in it.
Compassion completely flies out the window because some literally cannot reconcile the fact of the animal's free will with their own demented sense of possession
>>2667725People keep worrying about bioweapons targetting certain ethnicities or just genetic traits used by rightists. But they don't see the utility in engineering a virus which would, for example, only target members of the norman nobility and the Windsors, and which would be dormant in the rest of the population.
>>2667750>>2667703Interesting. You have a very thoughtful understanding of pet ownership.
>>2667762Making a virus for the bourgeois would be much more difficult, idk how you would do that. Maybe you can use an algorithm that reads the business owner registry and generates viruses for each individual on there. Or you could have a virus that infects everyone but only causes symptoms if activated by epigenetic circumstances, like entering a stock market causes you to experience rapid organ failiure.
>>2667750>licensing pet ownership will lead to more abusesheer nonsense
>the form of pet ownership itself is abusivewhats the alternative? wilding domestic animals, so that we get mauled by packs of dogs every time we go outside? pets are slaves by law, but a license ensures qualifications for pet ownership, like a driving license, or would you scrap that as well?
>>2667762royalty typically degenerates its own biology by inbreeding
Looks like the CPB is collapsing, every branch has become its own clique and part of the YCL has just broken off into like the Sussex Communist Party today.
anyone else finding the cold intolerable?
>>2668012Fucking freezing mate, at least it isn't snowing
>>2667978Good fucking riddance if so, glad to see them following their leader (Labour).
>>2668752
Putin would never attack the west though
>>2668360this is premium cringe.
also, havent these lot clocked onto the fact that trump is part of the biggest paedo ring in the world, yet?
I love the left love in for Burnham, a "soft" Blairite puppet of David Miliband.
Also keep seeing "what if The Greens actually win" when their vote share is already collapsing because shock horror, being 2021 woketards isn't actually appealing to anybody outside of GreenandPleasant. You can already see the identical platform of UK Greens perform in Australia with the Australian Greens, under largely small Australia (anti-Immigration) and Environmental focus the Greens hit their highs, often polling almost 20%, then leadership change from Boomers/Gen X to Millennials and they became Tumblr party of wokism and open borders and they lost all their safe seats and were oblitorated from the face of the map.
I wish the UK left had some serious fighter political figures that didn't get wrapped up in idiotic campism and idpol but it just ain't going to happen. Someone like Lynch is absolutely needed to lead the left, but the dude like much of the old left is still wedded to "it's still good!, it's still good!" with the Labour Party.
just saw this headline from the times:
>"fake jobs for sale to cheat system on migrant visas"https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/skilled-visas-for-sale-no-work-required-9pjhc3xfwapparently, skilled work visas for non-existent jobs are being sold to migrants by criminal networks, charged up to £20,000. ive seen this sort of scam in africa before as well, where they fleece people for fake UK visas, and then get away with their money. the times apparently joined 13 facebook groups with over a million total members seeking UK visas. only 250 recorded cases confirmed from 26 agents, who charge from £7,000 to £20,000. the times also properly reports that labour have been harsher on revoking skilled labour visas than the tories, leading to these developing black markets (which if we go by numbers, is not a big threat at all, since the margin is so high).
>>2668754
That car is a reflection of the fetishized relation individuals have with society, it's just a commodity plastered in an iconography of symbols that in themselves have no meaning.
It's symptomatic of present circumstances as the single unified form in which conscious thought finds itself expressed has been obliterated by the commodification of an aesthetic, resulting in what are ideologically charged yet incoherent social acts whereby private wealth is displayed in support of said movement as it is the basis of the relation the bourgeois subject has with their society.
It isn't even garish, it's literally the embodiment of the dysfunction at large in the present stage of capitalist production.
>>2669013>>2668754The ultimate conceit, passing right before everyone's eyes, is that these images mean nothing anymore and their total representation is a mere negation of the very attempt to give definition to a cause.
This is the contradiction unfolding in society at large; capital is transnational and subsequently so too the relation workers have with their society, being nothing more than that commodity labour.
My unironic position is now that we should just become the 51st state of America.
Economically and socially we have nothing to lose and much to gain.
>B-but that would mean we'd have to wait for America to go red instead of beating them to it!!
Plausible circumstances in which that happens do not exist.
>B-but America's doomed, we should be owned by China!!
Then let's double America's humiliation when we're taken as a Hong Kong type trophy 50 years hence, by taking the money now.
>Muh NHS
Could remain as a state-level healthcare system
>Muh supreme court
Ours is also a joke
>Muh nation!!
We're an American puppet drinking their reheated vomit on half their wages, we might as well take the money and eat the puke while it's piping hot. All that's worth saving is doomed to a far less glorious death with independence.
God save the president.
>>2669122It would get rid of the house of windsor if nothing else
>>2669122Let’s flood the UK with guns and fentanyl laced pills, it can’t get worse, ooh we can also open up Norf England and Scotland to American hunters and just blast away all the stags vgh
>>2669130Drug addled shitholes are already shitholes, yanks (and Germans) already shoot them, and hunting permits are a thing stateside
>>2669193>yanks (and Germans) already shoot them,Apparently they get the french in for a lot.
>>2669093>illegal immigrants will be offered financial incentives to self-deportomw to repeatedly illegally immigrate to the uk withing the 6 month period and claim my prizes
True that. Parents should parent, not the glowies. I fucking hate world "superpowers". Selling the idea of online oppression instead of actually helping the poor
>>2669122Ain't no way we're becoming part of Amerikkka™. Trump has enough imperialist wet dreams of Greenland already
>>2669122the yankee is not our friend.
>>2669093i think the other shoe will drop when people realise that its not the illegals the public are against, its the legal immigrants (e.g. student and work visas + dependents). how many "illegal" immigrants are in the UK, really..? over 1 million legal immigrants have come since 2020 however. this is why the derogatory discourse of "stop the boats" is so obscuring, since it mixes up numbers. voters wont be happy until you cancel all non-EU work and student visas, and in some way returning us to pre-brexit policy. almost as if the thing these people asked for was the cause of their own destruction, every time. we cany expect rationality from MAGA or MEGA though, worshipping billionaire paedos as they paki bash against "grooming gangs".
>>2669374Also both Reform and Conservative Judaism are pretty woke compared to Rabbinical Judaism
>>2669261Greenland's politicians aren't subservient enough, Britain's are. Culturally We're also a better match and only getting closer over time
>>2669280Their unfriendliness is one reason to say fuck it and join up. If you're gonna be oppressed by America, better than to taste the boot as a citizen than as a vassal.
>>2669318
>I will speak out on misogyny
The voice of god
>>2669458why would i want to be an american citizen?
its one of the least civilised nations on earth.
>>2669498
He works in mysterious ways, my son
>>2669498
>>2669499
i find it quite boring that women are only expected to speak on "women's issues".
>>2669318
>>2669498
Only in leftybritpol LMAO
You have two choices, become Chinese or become American
>>2669658Speak a lil Chinese for them Donny
>>2669635But what of the black and brown bodies?
>>2669658Always love a good Chinese takeaway, always pay cash in hand too.
Far better than undercooked overpriced amerislop fast food heart attack burgers you order on a soulless screen to avoid any human interaction.
>>2669675MSG-filled chippy is the definition of slop
I love me a chinky. What's your favourite meal from the chinky anons?
>>2669680i always get chicken fried rice with a tub of curry
special fried rice if im cheeky
maybe add a sausage on the order for good measure
>>2669671You know that America has more knife crime and murder per capita than England?
https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare- Donald Trump has sought to defend the use of guns stateside by shining a light on knife crime in London. But is the UK really any worse than the US?
>Donald Trump has sought to defend the use of guns in the US by drawing a parallel with knife crime in London.
>The US president, addressing the National Rifle Association, claimed a London hospital had become overwhelmed with victims of knife attacks.
>"They don't have guns. They have knives and instead there's blood all over the floors of this hospital," he said. "They say it's as bad as a military war zone hospital. Knives, knives, knives, knives.”
>So, how does the US and the United Kingdom compare when it comes to gun and knife crime?
<Knife murders are also higher stateside: there were 4.96 homicides “due to knives or cutting instruments” in the US for every million of population in 2016.
<In Britain there were 3.26 homicides involving a sharp instrument per million people in the year from April 2016 to March 2017.
<the knife is less cowardly than the gun, and we are ennobled for its sake.> we are a culture of swordsmen.Of poofters and throw it in the binmen.
>>2669675As if your pork fried msg slop is any healthier, god you’re all such clueless pigs
>>2669722"I'm a black man but I got white sins in me"
raw
>>2669671Look, it would be way different if it was people actually dueling with rapiers, but it's literally just black and pakistani teens and 20 something stabbing eachother or white teens they don't like in sneak attacks over just some bullshit like "disrespect", not passing the joint left or postcodes.
>>2669374I love how Liberals have largely succeeding in making Religions jettison literally everything meaningfull religious about them beyond ritual and adopting liberalism as their actual religion.
>>2669642Triggernometry are so fucking hard to look at, Konstantin just comes off as a evil soyjack and the other one looks like Link from gmm if he had been gangraped in the street by a grooming gang just before the episode filming and he's reliving the memory over and over through his 1000 yard state, fighting back tears, through the entire interview/debate.
I wish Leftist commentators weren't such soiboy fucking losers because honestly every rightoid media influencer looks like such a pathetic cuck.
>>2669675Special Fried Rice with a side of beansprouts.
Or Tofu curry.
>>2670268all duels are the reckoning of a certain disrespect. the problem is not the content, but the form of the aggression. the sanctioning of the "after-school fight" is a perfect example of this ethical order, where spectators build the zone of conflict, with some form of refereeing spontaneously appearing. what is right in this case is the fairness of the fight. the duel is also often a "fight to the death" such as in the case of the pistol duel of the classical period, in both england and america. it was not an unrespectable thing. what is unrespectable is the cowardice which compels unfairness in a fight, such as sucker punching, shanking, "2 on 1" and so on (cheating is universally recognised as victorious, but unethical). the inability for a man to fight his own battles is only a requirement for the pack animal, an ignoble affair.
what we then recognise in the depreciated state of combat is the license to cheat, which is cowardly, because it takes agency from one's own weakness. the true combatant seeks victory, but only by fairness. this is also why it is unethical to kill those who surrender, since it the murder of the unarmed and unwilling by the conquerer. for example, in homer's iliad (800 BCE), the retribution of patrocles by achilles leads him to kill prisoners of war, which is looked on as evil by all men. the fight is then a contract, which must be agreed to by all parties involved (e.g. a declaration of war) and so must be sanctioned according to proper regulation. a fight terminates by the terms of surrender, which then places a formal victory and loss to each member.
>>2670268>liberalismaka the end of history
There is not one thing in Britain that is both
a) superior to the American alternative
b) advancing, not stagnating or in obvious decline
This has not historically been true. Christ, as recently as 2017 /leftybritpol/ used to be good (and better than /usapol/) before sage left and socdem died
>>2670567decolonising britain would mean kicking out the anglos, no?
>>2670589bloody hell, i forgot he was a knight of the realm
>>2670488appreciate the mention my old comrade
what do you mean socdem died?
>>2670616
Who even cares. Imagine talking to one of the great statesmen of the current era at a great turning point in history and talking to him about such parochial nonsense. Embarrassing.
Especially given that legal migration is 30x illegal migration.
Question Time tonight:
>Right Wing Tory former Shadow Defence Secretary crying about how China will nuke us any day now
>Alt-Right, MAGA, Fascist, anti-Communist activist internet personality Konstantin Kisin
>Some Scottish Labour Neolib Blairite-Starmerite
>Some random University trade union rep
Epic
>>2671242
kys nazitard
>>2671248"I'm just le epic liberal centrist xD" while saying the most nazi racist shit imaginable, just like assmongler and poo0nhead, kys nazi
>>2671248He's just a wholesome liberal who believes in total Palestinian death
Every time I have to listen to the public I become convinced the British people are too retarded for any form of decision making responsibilities.
>>2671546the small boats are due to a lack of safe and legal routes. the right wing are unconsciously aware of this so slag off anyone who brings it up as "legitimating" some form of "invasion". the small boat people do not run into the UK and claim benefits, they are apprehended by the state and given temporary residence while the state reviews their asylum claim. a blacklog naturally exists due to the volume of cases, but at least half of claimants are initially denied:
<In 2024, 47% were granted at initial decision […] Between 2004 and 2021, around three-quarters (76%) of main applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and around a third (33%) of determined appeals were allowed.https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/here, it brings up "determined appeals" which is where the real scam is, since the re-appeal process maintains residency in the UK for the asylum seeker, and if it is perpetuated, it can last years (same way a benefits scam can last years). i think its reasonable to say that if an initial claim is denied, residency should be revoked - but it is a parochial isue as anon says, since the rate of legal immigration (e.g. work and student visas) is what determines demographic configuration, not boat people (aka "irregular arrivals"). the irregular arrivals cannot be prosecuted if they claim asylum straight away under international law (which in some way conflicts with british law, particularly the 1971 immigration act and the 2023 illegal migration act, aka the "rwanda plan" which was scrapped, but will probably make a comeback). irregular arrivals are thus not seen as "illegal" immigrants in their status of possessing human rights, despite their unauthorised access into the UK:
<There are four main ways for a person to become an unauthorised migrant in the UK: enter regularly on a visa and overstay, enter without authorisation, remain after asylum application avenues are exhausted, or be born in the UK to irregular migrant parents.https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/the numbers for this are then somewhat undetermined. this is also why many think that the UK must scrap its constitution with the ECHR and the HRA1998. others think we should revoke all visas and scrap the rights of immigrants to have "indefinite leave to remain", which were issued at over 500,000 in 2025 alone (that is over 500,000 immigrants "settled" as permanent residents in the UK). in total, there are over 11 million immigrants in the UK (<16% total population), meaning 11 million people who are not UK citizens. some even say that there should be "total remigration" of those who have no white british ethnicity, which is <25% of the total population (1 in 4 people).
>>2671250He's not a Nazi but Zionist liberal. "Western civilization" is the standard catch cry of Liberals when it comes to their interventionist horseshit. "Europe is a garden" for example.
To me he mostly comes off as a Blairite/Wet Tory type.
>>2671639The entire immigration and refugee status needs a complete and total overhaul and needs to be far more strict. The reality is the UK materially cannot keep accepting all these people and I say that as an immigrant who went through the process legally and blew through a lot of cash doing so and it's annoying for me watching clear scammers game the system.
Infrastructure in this country is fucked, housing stock in this country is fucked. Basically like 60% of buildings in this country need to be pulled down and rebuilt they are in such bad repair, there needs to be entire new hospitals, new train lines, new roads, new schools etc.
This isn't touching on the destruction of ethnic/cultural/civic makeup that is occuring, especially in and around London which is basically not even culturally British anymore.
Removing indefinite right to remain is stupid, but the UK absolutely should be getting rid of the ECHR/HRA1998 as it's clear that immigration lawyers and "advisors" have learned how to game them to force residency for basically anybody who steps foot in this country. The fact the UK can't deport multiple rapists, murderers, pedophiles, organized criminals etc is an absolute farce. Like seriously why in fuck is the UK accepting "refugees" from EUROPEAN countries? Why are Albanians considered "refugees" wtf?
The reality in the end is, the left either becomes serious on immigration controls or the right will take power and they will.
>>2671650I just honestly have no idea why people care about immigrants so much, they have some benefits and some downsides but clearly the most important issue in the UK is the mega rich fucking us all, if you genuinely are out there protesting at a migrant hotel you must be some kind of fucking retard and I honestly can't respect you
>>2671650>I say that as an immigrant who went through the process legally and blew through a lot of cash doing so and it's annoying for me watching clear scammers game the systemthis is a very common sentiment amongst immigrants themselves, which is why the partisan right fuck things up with their ethnonationalism.
>The reality in the end is, the left either becomes serious on immigration controls or the right will take power and they will.its too late for that though. starmer is lowering immigration, but statistics dont matter to the right, who only care about vibes. there is no common ground anymore or fair play, so we are losing civil society and general consensus from political polarisation. the left and right cant communicate anymore except through the french medium of public protest, as a way to libidinally discharge by a "2 minute of hate" ritual. i am called a fool for still believing in common sense and decency, which is the position of the true silent majority, who are not bigoted, and simply want justice.
>>2671657immigration is a critical concept:
>>2657116 >>2671668>its too late for that though. starmer is lowering immigration, but statistics dont matter to the right, who only care about vibesit's almost like playing to these guys is a bad idea since they can never be appeased and will always strike when they see weakness
>>2671668That post demonstrates nothing, clearly the UK does in fact have borders. It's not like we get 10 million immigrants per year either.
>>2671695well yes, exactly. you have to be the grown-up in the room, not the rhetorical opportunist.
>>2671696>the UK does have bordersyes, and it must be explained what borders are for. its not to racially discriminate (as an illiberal thinker like carl benjamin fabulates), but rather, national territories are economic constructs (which is a transhistorical reality of states). the cause of immigration must then have its rational justification rather than humanist blather. in other places i also explain how nations are spiritually composed by social contract rather than ethnicity. civic nationalism is also a transhistorical rationale, like the poles who helped the haitians fight off the french (1802) - they become honoured as the "negroes of europe", a constitutional clause of haitian citizenship. thus, "kin" naturally extends beyond flesh. i believe in the same logic of "naturalisation".
>>2671696>>2671722on the topic of immigration i like to speak on the ethos of "xenia" (hospitality to foreigners), such as we may read in homer's "odyssey" (800 BCE), like in book 6 onwards, where odysseus is welcomed by princess nausicaa, and the king offers odysseus (a penniless, naked stranger) gifts and even a wife on the island of the phaeacians. this same ethic is shown in medieval english literature, such as the arthurian poem "sir gawain and the green knight" (1375), where gawain is welcomed into a fortress, offered gifts and even given a maiden to sleep with him, in a bedroom of the castle. the warmth shown to strangers then presents a transhistorical attitude. besides this, there is also the immigration of invasion. also written by homer is the iliad (800 BCE), which shows us the greatest movement of humans across borders (greece to troy) at the time, the purpose of which is war, and only the strong wall of troy can protect the fortress of the city. the greeks speak very openly and pridefully of stealing and raping their way through the world. in this case, immigration serves the ends of evil, and thus as a concept, splits. too, in the odyssey, odysseus disguised as an old man is let within his abode, only to kill the 108 suitors to penelope, thus being a welcomed guest who clears his household (oikos). here, the guest inverts his role to usurp the presumed master. a similar thing perhaps occurs in the bible, where abraham curses egypt by lending the pharaoh his wife, for which he is expelled. the covenant God makes with abraham is also that his seed shall conquer all nations from within; showing an underlying malice of a guest to a host. of course, Christ rectifies this by the example of the samaritan woman, or the healing of the leper, where the outsider is brought within the community, or as Christ affirms, he has not come to heal the healthy, but to heal the sick. i have previously spoken of this in the context of "leper colonies" in the middle ages (citing foucault's "madness and civilisation", 1961, to show how capitalism is perpetuated on exclusion and discipline, which in marxian terms is relegated to "primitive accumulation").
to me, the topic of primitive accumulation is probably the most interesting thing marx talks about, since it demonstrates the historicity of capitalism, rather than its universal existence. as i have previously described, feudalism in england attempted to uphold itself from the 13th century onwards, leading to extensive class war in the 14th century, but also earlier, such as the first barons war (1215-17) which led to the establishment of the magna carta (1215). the french barons (landlords) waged war against the english monarchy, with a treaty ending in 1217. the magna carta was scrapped after this, eventually leading to a second baron's war (1264-7), requesting the same conditions, for the separation of powers from the king into the constitution of a "council" of barons (what later becomes the "house of lords", starting from the unicameral model parliament, 1295). so then, the landlords and king fought again, leading to the "statute of marlborough" (1267) which observed the rights entailed in the magna carta, finally reissued in 1297. also in this time was the statutes of mortmain (1279-90), which saw that feudal tributes must continue to remain a means of the state to receive revenue, formally declaring the ownership of land by "corporations" (ecclesiastical bodies) as illegitimate, and so land was only lent out. this was later resolved by henry viii's dissolution of the monasteries (1536-41) which saw church properties bankrupted, then bankrolled into private hands. this dispossession of church property was then the eventual victory of the "corporations" by private land owners.
the 14th century of course saw the class war of peasants and serfs against their feudal masters, leading to the doubling of wages from 1350-1450, the peasant revolt of 1381, and what marx purports as the erasure of serfdom in england, leading to peasant propriety:
<In England, serfdom had practically disappeared in the last part of the 14th century. The immense majority of the population consisted then, and to a still larger extent, in the 15th century, of free peasant proprietorshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htmaccording to different sources, there was no abolition of serfdom in england, it simply declined overtime, already ceasing to exist in normandy by 1100 and in france by 1318, showing the short-lived tenure of this system. from the 14th to the 15th century was a continuity of the "hundred years war" (1337-1453), which shortly led into the "war of the roses" (1455-87), which saw the ascendancy of the tudor house, and their hand in the establishment of english capitalism, beginning with the act of supremacy (1534) and the consequent dissolution of the monasteries (1536-41) which took property away from rome and into the hands of private landlords. other separatist church movements were the church of sweden (1536) and the netherlands (1571) which contributed to the protestant origins of the "spirit of capitalism" (t. weber, 1905). too, was the first joint-stock company of the "east india company" (1600), subsequently followed by the "dutch east india company" (1602). northern europe also had the first national central banks, such as sweden (1668) and england (1694), which marx saw as a vital engine of capitalism (measured by the national debt). antoine montchretien (1615) also spoke of the factory systems adopted in the netherlands and england as raising revenues for their state, displaying a capitalist frontier.
from all this, some say that capitalism begins in england at the very beginning of the 17th century (1600). marx contends that "enclosure" by henry vii (1489) was momentous, that the conversion of arable land into pasture, and thus the concentration of land into fewer hands, serves as the basis of modern capitalist relations, seeing how by 1533, some farmers owned more than 24,000 sheep each. it was the expropriation of the peasant farmer which thus establishes these conditions, with further privatisation of land under henry viii as the cause. this vindicates a georgist perspective then, that inequality is mostly a relationship to land. ellen meiksins wood (1999) also confers that capitalism began by "agrarian" conditions in england. so then, it is the tudors by the war of the roses, who bring capitalism to england; the red rose of lancaster and the white rose of york, the red and white of england, like the red and white of the philosopher's stone (t. geber, 800 CE), like the white rose of luther (1517) and the red rose cross (1610).
>>2671984Idk, in their native language you mean?
>>2672045
The bourgeois need labour, anon.
>>2672032
Downstream of twitter faggotry. Just hide, report and move on.
>>2672045
>access to white societies is not a human right
the claim of asylum is currently a human right in the UK
>>2671650>Why are Albanians considered "refugees" wtf?pretty much all Albanian refugees accepted are women who were sex trafficked here and want to live here safely instead of being sent back to Albania to be sex trafficked by the same gangs again.
the vast majority of male albanians who apply for asylum are rejected.
>>2672039
if Japan can support 128 million with basically no arable land relative to total landmass and outdated farming practices massively subsidized, Britain (~half the size but much more arable) can support at least double that.
and in an ideal world it would. and it wouldn't be a total shithole. and we'd have fast trains everywhere. and…
I live in a village of 3000 people and we have 5 barbers. Clearly some of them are just money laundering fronts but since I cut my own hair idk which. I expect this is the case everywhere in the UK and with vape shops too.
>>2672144
> you aren't going to save Africa from the Africans
Nor England from the English
>>2672160
It's a shame you don't use it
>>2672165
>my mantra is along the lines of "FIX YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY"
Before or after invading others
>Heh, we don't invade other countries silly communist
>"I must lie in order to defeat my enemy, I simply must"
>"The future of the white race depends on it"
>>2672169
Just watching these mental gymnastics is fucking hilarious mate
You know where the door is if ever you get tired
Looks like he found the door!
i hate this thread more than i hate this country.
>>2672207I wouldn't want to be associated with either
It's a shame because I'd like to post photos online but that'd out be as a brit.
Innit?
You're such a clown mate, crack on
Bang up job blokes.
Uh, Leoncavallo was white silly communist
>>2672274
only in terms of size and of railway network. in terms of diversity, the main lesson from japan is that you can never win pandering to anti-immigration sentiment because it isn't based in reality. even if there is some basis for it, in theory, japan proves that removing that basis does not remove the sentiment.
(they've got a far-right anti immigration party in parliament, gaining in popularity, and somewhat pandered to. that party thinks immigrants are taking all the jobs from native japanese… in a country that's 98% japanese and where a chunk of the remainder are koreans/descendants of koreans who've been there since before ww2 who're basically entirely japonisized.)
Cor.
>>2672297
Do they not have bins?
What are British sports fans known for? 🤔
>>2672302Their skin colour
>>2672297curious that you throw up a new question instead of engaging with anything that i said. were i more cynical, i would suspect you were working towards a preordained conclusion instead of having a conversation.
>>2672298but unironically: this.
if you want to be racist about it, i'll indulge that, but only if you'll do it fairly and see that britons are in the bottom 50% of people you want in a country and are getting worse over time. no liberal or communist could make so strong a case for mass immigration as a racialist or eugenist looking seriously at the modern brit.
>>2672306
This doesn't happen in Japan, because they don't have gigs.
Just kabuki theatre
>>2672317
I hear they're so polite they stick the rubbish in their holdalls and take it home with them
>>2672310the british are a declining people
the whole world can see it
>>2672316
we must conclude from what you say that britain fails because of the british people.
i can see, therefore, no stronger case for their immediate replacement.
We must build a new Japanese ethno-state in Britain
Britain with Japanese characteristics
>>2672006yeah and her family probably spoke… whatever language that is at home as well
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) >>2672339
whats interesting is that you actively deny evidence to the contrary of your current beliefs. i think this is what psychiatrists call "denial", a state of extreme irrationality, brought upon by stupidity or grief.
you dont want facts or conversation, you want a soapbox and then a quick way to flee from your lies.
>>2672347Those are clearly Ryukyuan and not Yamato Japanese people
>>2672348
so what? everyone in the UK litters.
you would only have a point if it wasnt hypocritical.
>>2672368I'm fucking dead, carry on without me
>>2672361> There are intrinsic cultural difference that you cannot just wash over.True.
https://hyperjapan.co.uk/uncategorised/spogomi-uk-pick-up-trash-and-ticket-to-tokyo/
>“Picking up trash is a sport!”>SPOGOMI was born in Japan in 2008 as a sport in which 3-person teams compete against each other to pick up as much rubbish as possible. Points are awarded according to the amount and type of trash picked up in a given area within a set time limit.
>SPOGOMI not only eliminates litter through competition, but it is also a sport where anyone can win with the right combination of teamwork, strategy and tactics.
>After the success of SPOGOMI in Japan and around Asia, 2023 sees 20 teams from national selections around the world have the opportunity to join in a special international SPOGOMI World Cup event. This is the first time that SPOGOMI will be held worldwide in order to share the message of positive environmental action in the community and reduce the amount of trash that flows into the ocean.
>The winners of the qualifying tournaments will represent their country and receive a ticket to the World Cup scheduled to be held in Tokyo, Japan in November 2023.So have you ever competed for your national Spogomi team anon?
>>2672372
Where's the door again?
>>2672391>Archie BlandHis ancestors must of been Bri'ish chefs.
Who's gonna win that by-election then eh?
>>2672391 I'm Belgian and this is fucking amusing
>>2670589>Sir KeirHe only got the title because the WEF wants him to
>>2659574Ask Brooklyn Beckham. Never bothered to keep his nose down in a fucking book or get an education. He's 16 and cries about living in David's "shadow". Brooklyn never even did anything for society.
No but really, how did we manage to tank a culture or at least a self image of being polite, reserved, smart, and occasionally eccentric?
You can say those are all middle class stereotypes and the working class have always been boorish, you can say immigrants naturally come from a different background, but that can't explain why even old middle class white women are increasingly brainwormed Temu yankees.
Well, that's unfair: American liberals embody those stereotypes more effectively than Brits nowadays. Technology Connections should be made honorary king of the FUKGBNI
>>2672532we can see here the dress and etiquette during the victorian and edwardian era, where women wore veils or scarves over their heads, while men and boys wore 3-piece suits (of course, the head scarf is seen as "medieval" nowadays and the suit is only reserved for the wedding or funeral). the context was also one of a lack of personal rights for women and children; children who worked all day, smoked fags and maybe even slept with prostitutes - you can see the rapid aging of people in this society, which displayed an outward formality but with an inward brutality. later on we get the beatles and the rest of the 60s, where people are made into supreme individuals, able to experiment in fashion. skimpiness takes hold. later is 70s and 80s punk where the fed-up and unemployed youth rebel against their elders and the political order. then with the 90s and early 2000s you get the blairist civic nationalism of britpop. with the 2010s british culture is thoroughly americanised, and by the 2020s everyone is locked inside, disintegrated.
i would say that its during the 70s that the debasement of polite culture emerges, even with the scrapping of the USA's production code which censored obscene material. we enter into the grime of the 70s, after the previous social democracy is fading away. the neoliberal order is upon the west, as national industry is privatised, and shipped out to the developing world. with the erasure of the old politeness comes a new superegoic code however, one of a demanded pleasure, where those who refuse to participate in the new culture are demonised as deficient actors. the cool kids are drug addicts while the losers are religious or bookish, an implicit anti-intellectualism that devalues the place of sensitivity or restraint. being a "virgin" is no longer virtuous, but is sinful.
>>2673364Presumably all the ethnic kids were at work that day?
It's called propaganda
>>2673401what? you are being incoherent.
>>2673403If you use your eyes and look at the video, and every other of this era, you'll see, despite the modern claims of "diversity built Britain" and so on, that there was only a tiny percentage of them living here, even right up to the 1950s.
>>2673408And what happened after the 1940s? I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with "pissrale"
Propaganda is the reason your arsehole clenches at the mere sight of a union jack
Propaganda is the reason israel can maintain a birth rate of 3.0 while convincing everyone else they need to import Africa
>>2673408what does this have to do with anything…?
>>2673412israel, formerly the british mandate for palestine (1917)
>union jackan imperialist symbol of oppression, from the time of 1801. we also wouldnt have mass immigration from ireland (1840-70) if it wasnt for the UK, or domestic settlement for the colonies after the british nationality act (1948) which is where africans in britain, like the windrush generation come from. later on the far-right vote for brexit (2016-20) to kick out the pakis, and suddenly boris undoes EU regulation, leading to a million non-EU citizens living in the UK. now the far-right are again petitioning for the conman farage to save them.
>>2673416so why arent you currently impregnating women?
"propaganda", i presume?
>>2673408Until the 1950s Britain was an Empire, not a country. It is rather difficult to have a non-diverse empire.
Having lost said empire, Britain then imported former imperial subjects to the core. The last time Britain (in the conception of the time) wanted for diversity in any serious way was back in the days of John Blanke.
What is confused is not libs (who are accidentally correct), but conservatives who do not understand the distinction between British imperialism and British nationalism. British conservatism is, as such, completely incoherent. A mish-mash of contradictory positions and nonsense born of confabulating the British Empire with the British nation-state that Attlee tried to set up and that Wilson finalized by jettisoning almost everything but Hong Kong.
(for more see David Edgerton's Rise and Fall of the British Nation.)
>>2673426Let's try a thought experiment, I have a list of all the things I can think of the government has done that has ultimately suppresses native birth rates.
So am I talking to an automaton, or can you name some of those items on the list.
having children is a pain in the arse.
be honest, /leftybritpol/ do you in your current or likely future circumstances seriously envision yourself putting in the effort to have a child? not "oh, i'd have a kid if the government paid for them and nursery/school did the hard part of raising them while i did the fun bit where we go to museums on a saturday", not "oh yeah, i'd love to indoctrinate them into my specific version of socialism", the realistic hard stuff where you're going to take a material hit to your income and your /leftybritpol/ shitposting time and your wife-shagging time and all the other things in life you enjoy for the benefit of a child. a child who, granted, might act as insurance against being put in a home when you're old, but that's a long way off and you've got a thread to post in now.
people used to have children because they were bored, drunk, and shagging (remember, only 4-5 channels on telly up to most of your birthdays…) and because it was a social obligation (when's the last time someone other than a geriatric relative asked you, in a way that implied you'd ashamed yourself, when you were going to have kids?), they did so in much worse economic circumstances than today in absolute terms. why - and i mean this practically, not morally - would you suddenly decide to start living on hard mode, start living not for yourself but for your descendants?
be honest: you've no real plans to have kids, if you think about your legacy at all it lies in some other project - perhaps socialism or, for our resident right-wingers, real conservatism. that's okay, i don't judge, but don't imagine it's some nefarious outside force that's getting in your way unless the doctor's told you that you're infertile.
>>2673448have you never wandered onto a council estate? the native poor are constantly dumping out children, like a malthusian nightmare. its the middle class that refuses to reproduce itself because of its spiritual impotence.
>>2673449these are the ramblings of an idiot.
try to do some "adulting" before you comment on what adults do.
>>2673448how widely are you thinking? do state pensions count? the dole? (which, despite aligning well with tax credits and child benefit, ultimately discourages work because if you're out of work you don't need to ask your kids to help you out), legalization of homosexuality (cutting down the number of gays who have kids to show that they're totally straight), sex education classes, the decimation of council housing, the existence of the NHS (why have 8 kids hoping some survive when their survival is now basically guaranteed?) the mass rollout of television and the internet (more interesting and less effort than going to a club, having sex, deciding to keep the child)…
me, personally, i'd put the ranking
state pension/maybe dole > TV/internet > NHS > other
>>2673453the question is not what adults do, it is what adults don't do: have kids. fully 50% of women born in 1990 did not have kids by age 30.
this thread is, one hopes, full of legal adults. be honest: what percentage of this thread do you expect to reproduce? for argument's sake, let's say they all have a state issued gf, so we can set aside the problem of posters being repellent.
i put it at 25% at the very most.
>>2673456your mistake is rationalising reproduction as an impossible chore rather than the homosexualisation of the heterosexual union. its a lifestyle choice, not an economic calculation - since people even decline to have kids when they are offered money to do so.
>>2673462that is precisely my point, though i would not use that language: having children is a lifestyle choice now. it does not happen by accident or by obligation. as such, many people opt not to make that choice. (or tell themselves they'll get around to it later)
having children has become a chore because the relative appeal of
not doing so has increased dramatically. you are saying that 2+3 = 5 and i am saying that 3+2 = 5.
offering money is a mixed factor: if you abolished the entire welfare state i think more people would have children, particularly those not confident they can save enough in their own lifetimes. beyond that, though, the impact of child benefit or a baby bonus or whatever is non-zero but marginal. the full price to get most people to have kids is probably higher than the state would ever want to pay. (i think more people
would choose being parents if it was regarded as a full time job paid at professional rates, for example.)
>>2673456>>2673462also as i comment, reproduction is a class issue, where the poor are much more likely to have kids than the wealthy, equally reflected by global trends. looking at history also, the birth of many children by europeans was paired with high child mortality, while as children lived, birthing was regulated. i am born from a council estate irish catholic mum who had 5 kids from 3 different dads, so maybe i have a unique perspective idk.
>>2673470>if you abolished the welfare state people would have MORE childrenbut this goes against the initial argument that people dont have kids cos its playing life on hard mode
it is poverty that breeds children
>muh hwyte birth-rates
Another day of despising you people.
The utter dregs of british society.
>>2673473without a welfare state one doesn't play life, one fights to retain it. the question of "what will happen to me in my old age?" ceases to be a sort of vague musing about winding in a home and becomes a very real risk of starving in the streets.
or, for those with lower time preferences (if we lump labour laws into the welfare state) children being economic contributors by age 10 is always nice.
these economic factors then flow into cultural factors: failing to have kids to provide for your old age today is a neutral choice, failing to have kids to provide for your old age in such a society would be seen as gross irresponsibility that will come back to bite you. (and it will!)
you can imagine a sort of curve: zero welfare state means more children, a moderate welfare state means less, and a ridiculous one (where you're paid £50,000 a year to be a full time parent) means more again.
>>2673477tbh i don't care about white birth rates, but as an academic social engineering question i find it slightly interesting. the problem (if it's a problem!) is most pressing in Korea and Japan anyway. Britain isn't doing too terribly, all things said.
>>2673454>inflate house prices beyond reason>encourage women to join the rat race>introduce quickly divorce>two income mortgage a defacto standard>stigmatise keeping house and raising children (BENEFITS STREET)>use climate change as a guilt crowbar>demonise single white menThis is how you do it, this is how they work on you in your sleep
>>2673477Don't worry darling, some cunt will delete all my posts again and you'll be back in your internet safe space before you know it. X
>>2673481i just dont think the rationale factors into the actual process of having children, which is mostly a compromise with fate after an unplanned pregnancy. people are also having less sex in general, so that plays into it - and abortion is still unpopular in the UK (89% of abortions are through pill between 2 to 9 weeks of gestation).
>>2673539oh, so thats why you have no gf - cos you are "demonised", obviously…
>>2673545Bleep bloop
Call_INCEL.BATCH
Forgot
>turn women into prostitutes in their own homes
>>2673481>inflate house priceshouse prices are actually largely at equilibrium, its just that supply is low, but house prices should naturally reduce since rates of replacement are also declining.
>women working (1919-)>divorce (1973-)>benefits street (2014-)so the reason why white people arent having 2 or more children on average in the UK is the feminists from 1919 to 1973, and telly in 2014? extremely academic analysis.
>>2673548you keep talking about white people not having enough children. be the change you want to see in the world. simple.
>>2673563It's about 5x more difficult to buy a house than it was in the 80s, on average.
Women working is one thing, GIRL PoWAh being in the rat race is another-look up supply and demand
I said quickie divorce
Benefits street and that type of programm8ng has been on since the early 2000s
I don't have children because I am gay if that's any of your business
Do people still use hot water bottles? where do you buy one?
>>2673566and everything bad that has happened in the UK is because… israel? thats the redpill?
>i am gaygays are typically more thoughtful than youre acting
>>2673616
Wasn't Marx Jewish?
>>2673616
uyghur you were literally brainwashed by benefits street (a telly program explicitly designed to increase hatred against poor people to justify cutting away even more social safety nets) and you think mayo people don't treat their own like animals?
lol you lot could live under tory governance for 5000 years and find some way of blaming India for all your problems
>>2673616
>the world is completely fair and righteous
nah
>there isn't a 3000 year old blood cult looking out exclusively for its best interest and treating everyone else like animals.
There isn't lmao. Sorry that the world is complex and hard to underdstand sweety
>>2673652He is bristling to spam those Stormfront infographs that 'enlightened' him
>>2673652>>2673665antisemitism requires a lack of historical literacy.
the catholics are the original central bankers (1185):
<The chapel is Temple Church, consecrated in 1185 as the London home of the Knights Templar. But Temple Church is not just an important architectural, historical and religious site. It is also London's first bank.https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38499883later followed by the protestants (1668-94):
<the Swedish Riksbank. Established in 1668 as a joint stock bank, it was chartered to lend the government funds and to act as a clearing house for commerce. A few decades later (1694), the most famous central bank of the era, the Bank of England, was founded also as a joint stock company to purchase government debt.https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2007/ec-20071201-a-brief-history-of-central-bankschristians are the subversive merchants.
christians are the warmongers.
christians are the zionists.
>>2667978Do you have a source on this?
>>2676113>Milḥemet mitzvah or in Tiberian Hebrew milḥemeth miṣwah (Hebrew: מלחמת מצווה, lit. "war by commandment", or what is often termed a "religious war", a "war of obligation," a "war of duty"[1] or a "commanded war") is the term for a war during the times of the Tanakh when a king (of the Kingdom of Israel) would go to war in order to fulfill something based on, and required by, the Torah without needing approval from a Sanhedrin, such as war against Amalek,[2][3] or the seven nations of Canaan.
>Questions about the halakhic justification for war again arise in modern times in connection to military operations of, and service in, the Israel Defense Forces. To the extent that such operations are perceived to be self-defense, they are viewed as examples of milhemet mitzvah.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkhemet_Mitzvah
>Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg (d. 2006; Tzitz Eliezer 3:9:2:10 and 3:9:2: summary:16) says that based on this Ramban, the wars of the State of Israel to liberate and maintain control of the Land are milchemet mitzvah and (7:48: Kuntrus Orchot Hamishpatim:12) that because Israel is under constant attack, Rambam would agree that Israel’s wars are milchemet mitzvah.https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-the-truth-about-milchemet-mitzvah/>First main reddit account was site banned because UKpolitics mods reported me for saying Pedo Mandelson was best friends with Epstein and was heavily involved with Epstein politically
>That mod Optioxix literally cried I was claiming this because of homophobia "You're calling him a pedo because he's gay" and banned me for rule 1 then reported me to the admins as Rule 1 and got my main OG reddit account banned.
>Shock horror, turned out I was once again 100% fucking CORRECT.
Reminder that the UKpolitcs mods are nonce defenders.
Fuck I wish my Reddit account wasn't banned and ban evasion is practically impossible there anymore because I want to see those fucking mods squirm when I present the screenshots they defended Epstein and Mandelson years ago.
>>26772651. They wouldn't care and they would just come up with some rationalisation
2. They're literally feds, arguing with them is totally pointless
>>2677423have you ever read Nabokov's Lolita??? We have idiots and uncultured plebs here who just throw around words and terms. The fact that you bring up JK Rowling indicate that you are anti TERF, can we please stop using Epstein to score fucking cheap political points against whatever online obsession you have, you absolute mongoloids
>>2677589oh fuck off
>>2677589>animal sacrificeyou mean factory farming?
>>2677601>>2677599The West having such a close connection with a people that practice ritualistic blood sacrifice is fucking weird, frankly it is creepy as fuck.
>>2677603the west (christendom) worships an idol of human sacrifice in the form of Christ - whats more weird?
>>2677603>ritualistic blood sacrificewhat on earth did you think your indo-aryan ancestors did, even as far back as the medieval period lithuanians still performed unironic human sacrifice
>>2677608Christ was explicitly a denial of human sacrifice and sacrifice in general, that is why Christians stopped performing animal sacrifice
>>2677599Also how many Jewish girls did Epstein cart off to his slaughterhouse, dipshit. Around zero would be my guess. Sooner or later all of these hundreds of coincidences must surely click, even for a bunch of bonehead such as yourselves.
>>2677609Oh shit they did that back in the cave man days? Well that nullifies the whole thing then!
Prick
>>2677423It's a shame there isn't a spell to just make them disappear
>>2677609>>2677603Also you guys love throwing people into bogs.
Also I maintain that the witch hunts were also just a human sacrifice ritual. Most of these human sacrifices have to do with the harvests, and crop failures were the impetus for most witch hunts.
https://www.capitolbeatok.com/reports/witch-hunts-and-climate/https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-change-fueled-witch-hunts-then-and-now/ >>2677620sacrifices is not just "bad violence" anon. Sacrifices carried specific nature in it in which the fault of society at large is externalized to a minority who is sacrificed to appease the Big Other. Indeed, the closest example to actual human sacrifice in Europe is antisemitism. Not industrial husbandry, which is driven by economic logic rather than a sacrificial one
>>2677653Christianity basically flipped the narrative by saying that the guy who is sacrificed, who is blamed for everything going wrong in society, is innocent. It is the society who sacrificed the scapegoat who has always been wrong all along
>>2677653sacrifice is sacrifice.
you cant hide from God.
>>2677657Christ is revolutionary
christians are reactionary
>>2677599>Nooo you can't call out this reactionary billionaire figure with links to Epstein! You just hate TERFs!!!Cope on
>>2677701the anon was actually just explaining that "lolita'" is not a pro-paedophilia novel as many philistines believe.
>>2677599all good people are anti-TERF. independent of their distaste for transgender people, TERFism is an ugly movement of stupid people.
(and not for no reason will you generally find that any idiot who starts with TERFism drifts down a weird right-wing or de-facto right-wing rabbit hole until they're asking why everyone's so annoyed that ICE are shooting people in the back in self defense.)
>>2677653>>2677657thank you mr. girard.
(but "we should accept stupid arbitrary hierarchies just so we don't all sacrifice one another" isn't going to wash, mr. thiel. we will find new ways of differentiating people based on mutable characteristics, and the coalition of monsters and idiots fighting to retain their arbitrary distinctions
glibly: the trump coalition and their adjacents and hangers-on and emulators will lose in the end.)
>>2677599>>2677759There's a difference between calling lolita "a great story" and "a great love story"
I was in Ireland for the bloody sunday march, what did I miss?
Unique IPs: 175