The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm not so sure, these things tend to change rapidly, in relevant terms. It was only 12 years ago that Kilroy Silk was been laughed out of town for joining a ramshackle little party called UKIP. Only 7 years ago that Nick Griffin was being smugly lambasted by the liberal establishment. At the same time that Farage was ringing up a couple of million votes. The Tea Party in America was a long standing joke but ended up creating the pathway for Trump. Hardly anyone saw this swing coming. 2008 changed a hell of a lot, very quickly and financially and philosophically the world is still recovering. It probably never will because financially it is in such a devastating tailspin that there are only a finite number of plasters that can keep it limping along. Politics is opportunism, making the most of being in the right place at the right time by taking full advantage of it. In the traditional sense yes, the left is gone as is the right because they have to be adapted for this time period but there will be a counter action to the various factions on the right because the centre claimed power for half a century and showed how ineffective they truly are.

Post 1929 things recovered because there was the realisation that things couldn't stay the same. And even though I can't pretend I'm happy with the form which it's taken the rise of the populist right is the public telling people we don't want the same things anymore.

What actually happened since 2008 to now? Very little. In 1929 you had the Glass Stiegel act which put in place measures to ensure that what caused the crash couldn't happen again. Big financial institutions couldn't merger to make themselves too big to fail so they could blackmail governments after behaving irresponsibily.
The bail out packages were the worst mistakes governments have made, because they were designed to allow companies like Goldman Sachs to come out on top.
So I don't disagree that things can change quickly and that history is circuitous but history shows that in the last hundred years the left has never really taken hold in the west and certainly not in the way it's vanguard would have wanted.
People hold up the Labour government as the torch bearer for radical social upheaval, when in fact the measures brought in were designed to prevent radical social upheaval, and Atlee and Earnest Bevin were hated by the left as collaborators with the Tories for being a part of their government and taking part in their war.
Under that government austerity and rationing was common place (rationing didn't end until 1953 when the Tories were back in power) under that government Britain became a nuclear power and involved itself in Korea....the kind of thing that would turn the stomach of the reactionary/regressive left.

Today from what I can see there is only cosmetic difference between the left and the right. Both are isolationist in terms of foreign policy, whilst the right is nationalist the left is statist (try and unpick that one) and both use the working class as their pawns. The left now have the multi cultural council estate working class and the right have the more provincial post industrial working class.

[Kano]

The turnaround in the 30's came off the back of the private sector loaning money to Roosevelt to get things moving again - if there are no workers earning money and thus no one going to buy the products from these companies, the economic system was only going one way. So the Steagall act worked well as an illusionary measure but it was a case of companies having to bide their time while the economy picked up again and as we have seen over the decades, they have chipped away in court case after court case until he it has become meaningless. They initially had to wait for the recovery to occur during (most) of that decade, then the Second World War, dealing with those post-war financial implications in the economy, before the boom of the late 50/60's finally gave them the green light. That was when the challenges to the act really began to have an effect, leading to the de-industrialisation of the 70's, heavy deregulation of banks in the late 70/80's and so forth.

The idea of the left, through Marxism mostly, spread pretty quickly really but its failed misinterpretation through Lenin/Stalin and Mao absolutely tarnished it in the West. Easily providing all the ammunition capitalism needed to point and state what an awful, totalitarian ideology it was at heart. Job done. But capitalism and the real left just won't gel and that's the problem it faces. Although, that may well be resolved without them having to do much at all. Maybe that will prove to be the point when rather just focusing on what it doesn't want society to look like, people will step forward with a clear vision of what it should become.

Left or right, centre or not, many of the ideals cross over. Labour's 'angle' was always about standing for the working class, defending the common man against the tyranny of the educated classes etc etc. Worked great on a local level but not to the masses in this system, without sounding too manic. The closer to central Government it got, the more diluted it became. No surprise at all that Attlee formed their first majority post-WWII. Any ideas of real 'radicalism' have no room to work within this economic model and so it could never truly be a leftist party. It was merely natural progression that over the decades the two main parties have merged into one indistinguishable form. Kinnock was the last throwback to the 'old school' union type but he was laughably out of touch as the Tories steam rolled ahead with modernisation and he never stood a chance with the electorate. He stunk of the bleak 70's that everyone wanted dead and buried under Wilson/Callaghan.

This is the ironic thing about the two sides. Bottom line, people who vote for either want the same thing. Jobs and stability. But keeping them apart is a business for the media and for politicians who have chosen a career that is built on taking turns. Too many vested interests to allow people to stop shouting at each other for a minute and realise their similarities. That sort of mass union is absolutely terrifying for those with so much to lose.

Whether it's the movement and belief of people that pushed Corbyn to his job, Sanders appearance as an American (moderate) socialist in the mainstream, Greece, Spain, or Austria, Netherlands, France or Trump - these are signs of people movement away from the norm. Throw in Occupy, Black Lives (whether or not they are successful or if people believe they are valid causes) and of course the Tea Party, then there is a shift happening in two directions. A growing swell of anger from almost every corner of society. At the moment, the main difference is, one side has a vision (based on nostalgia, or a form of mourning for the past some would call it) while the other is behind in that respect. I won't claim to know what it is heading toward exactly but we are undoubtedly in the stages of something else forming in the spectrum.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The turnaround in the 30's came off the back of the private sector loaning money to Roosevelt to get things moving again - if there are no workers earning money and thus no one going to buy the products from these companies, the economic system was only going one way. So the Steagall act worked well as an illusionary measure but it was a case of companies having to bide their time while the economy picked up again and as we have seen over the decades, they have chipped away in court case after court case until he it has become meaningless. They initially had to wait for the recovery to occur during (most) of that decade, then the Second World War, dealing with those post-war financial implications in the economy, before the boom of the late 50/60's finally gave them the green light. That was when the challenges to the act really began to have an effect, leading to the de-industrialisation of the 70's, heavy deregulation of banks in the late 70/80's and so forth.

The idea of the left, through Marxism mostly, spread pretty quickly really but its failed misinterpretation through Lenin/Stalin and Mao absolutely tarnished it in the West. Easily providing all the ammunition capitalism needed to point and state what an awful, totalitarian ideology it was at heart. Job done. But capitalism and the real left just won't gel and that's the problem it faces. Although, that may well be resolved without them having to do much at all. Maybe that will prove to be the point when rather just focusing on what it doesn't want society to look like, people will step forward with a clear vision of what it should become.

Left or right, centre or not, many of the ideals cross over. Labour's 'angle' was always about standing for the working class, defending the common man against the tyranny of the educated classes etc etc. Worked great on a local level but not to the masses in this system, without sounding too manic. The closer to central Government it got, the more diluted it became. No surprise at all that Attlee formed their first majority post-WWII. Any ideas of real 'radicalism' have no room to work within this economic model and so it could never truly be a leftist party. It was merely natural progression that over the decades the two main parties have merged into one indistinguishable form. Kinnock was the last throwback to the 'old school' union type but he was laughably out of touch as the Tories steam rolled ahead with modernisation and he never stood a chance with the electorate. He stunk of the bleak 70's that everyone wanted dead and buried under Wilson/Callaghan.

This is the ironic thing about the two sides. Bottom line, people who vote for either want the same thing. Jobs and stability. But keeping them apart is a business for the media and for politicians who have chosen a career that is built on taking turns. Too many vested interests to allow people to stop shouting at each other for a minute and realise their similarities. That sort of mass union is absolutely terrifying for those with so much to lose.

Whether it's the movement and belief of people that pushed Corbyn to his job, Sanders appearance as an American (moderate) socialist in the mainstream, Greece, Spain, or Austria, Netherlands, France or Trump - these are signs of people movement away from the norm. Throw in Occupy, Black Lives (whether or not they are successful or if people believe they are valid causes) and of course the Tea Party, then there is a shift happening in two directions. A growing swell of anger from almost every corner of society. At the moment, the main difference is, one side has a vision (based on nostalgia, or a form of mourning for the past some would call it) while the other is behind in that respect. I won't claim to know what it is heading toward exactly but we are undoubtedly in the stages of something else forming in the spectrum.

Glass Stiegel didn't cure the depression, it was a measure to make sure it couldn't happen again. And tossers like Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers decided that the self correcting power of the market place would prevail and the stabilisers could be taken off.

Atlee wasn't radical in government because the situation didn't allow it, he wasn't radical in government because he wasn't himself a radical. The measures introduced by Labour were largely contained in the government white paper as a result of the Beveridge report and would have been implemented to some degree even if the Conservatives had remained in office after 1945.

The post war consensus ended because it had nothing left to offer, unionised manafacturing had become totally stagnant due to intransigence and it became victim to its own inability/unwillingness to compete in a global market place.

Socialism you are right is incompatible with capatalism because they are two competing ideologies, and human beings are far too concerned with adapting to an all encompassing philosophy that lasts for all time. Liberal democracy is running out of steam because it cannot reconcile the gap between maintaining a robust economy through global competition and ensuring that all citizens at least have a fair crack of the whip within that sphere.

The baby boomer generation were the beneficiaries of the heavy industry jobs and government intervention that lasted from 1945 through to the 1980s and ever since then there has been a downward trajectory where machines and foreign competition has made them obsolete.

That's where we are at now at this crossroad, the two options the first is protectionism which Trump has offered which will involve tariffs on imports, fines for purchasing cheaper foreign material (cough hypocrite) and making noises about climate change denial to bring back pointless industries like coal.

The other is investing in new technologies and investing in an economy of skill, where people living here are trained to do the jobs of the future (whatever the fuck they happen to be) and create a platform where you can provide something that no other country can.

Ultimately I think either way these are short term measures as we cannot change the fact that in making our lives and technological advances more efficient we have rendered ourselves obsolete.

And that's why the best way to make money today is to wear a nice suit play about with imaginary digits on a computer screen and have your wages paid into an offshore savings deposit which is then loaned backed to you with a ten percent surcharge.

[Kano]

No I didn't mean Steagall ensured the recovery in the mid-to-late 30's, that was down to the Government loaning and reinvesting through the New Deal programs. Steagall was put there to put the banks back in check but it was never going to last. Capitalism was only going to head off in once direction after the war such was the determination to get industry booming again and getting those blocks removed was all down to doing it at to right time.

And no Atlee wasn't a radical and Labour never could be when near to, or in power. Absolutely impossible. It's selling point was never a true reflection of what it could do in the mainstream. Roosevelt had implemented similar ideas a decade previously with social security, so it wasn't so revolutionary. But that was before he sold out the West to the Middle East for oil as a long term security. Came back to bite them on the arse that one.

[Niall_Quinn]

Capitalism failed because it is incompatible with government. The two cannot co-exist because government is a monopoly that dwarfs all else and once you have a consumer that size in the marketplace, one that can dip into the pocket of every citizen and consume on their behalf, then the marketplace can't function in a competitive manner. You have to abolish government if you want capitalism and you have to abolish free enterprise if you want communism. We have had the worst of all arrangements for the longest time and it's no surprise at all the citizens were reduced to an insurance policy for the government monopoly that went into partnership with the so-called capitalists.

This is where the scarcely conceivable gulf between the few and the many was born. Just like the slave plantations only on a much larger scale and without the need to provide bed and breakfast (although firm discipline is still on tap). Governments throughout the west handed control of money to private individuals and then set about constraining wages so their corporate friends could print debt. Whether there have been "tough" or lax financial controls hardly matters because the underlying principle of the debt driven economy was never affected. So profits were sometimes down from a million percent to half a million percent. Pity them.

These mythical restrictions on the financiers are bread for the masses to keep them believing in the primacy of government and its ability to influence significant economic factors, and all the while there never was a western administration that had any intention of interfering with the underlying system. It's all utter bullshit. As I said previously, Andrew Jackson was the last guy in the west who actually had fiscal and monetary policies. Smash the fucking private banks. That was it. Very simple. Very easy to understand. Very effective. Mostly everyone since has had nothing to say, mere actors strutting around a stage, posturing and preening to attract meaningless votes. Let women vote. Let the blacks vote. Let everyone vote, just so long as they vote. And there you have your great civil rights revolution in a nutshell. What difference did it make? Racial equality, racial purity, sexual liberation, feminism, a third set of toilets for those who can't decide which way to swing. It's all good. But stay the fuck away from the money!

Listening to Obama's libtard army is painful to the ears. They are on the box lamenting the passing of this great charlatan who brought us wonders such as gay marriage and new acronyms like LGBT. What a fucking achievement. Just wow. And now Trump's army are waiting for him to "drain the swamp" and he might even do it. He could well kick those bastards right out of Congress, right through that revolving door and into comfortable boardroom recliners. That's fucking teach them! Then I guess he gets more politicians in, only this time nice ones who will love the people long time. I honestly don't know how so many people can swallow so much shit for so long without gagging. But you know maybe there are a few splutters going around this time. I think we may need an alien invasion to bring everyone back into line (and I'm not even shitting about that). Anyway, they'll think of something and it will probably work.

Meanwhile, Mr Unelectable here in the UK has suggested government banks funding public profits. Is there a triple barrelled lone nut in the house? I think we might need him soon. But still, a round of applause because it's at least a policy and we haven't seen any of those from any party for a very long time.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No I didn't mean Steagall ensured the recovery in the mid-to-late 30's, that was down to the Government loaning and reinvesting through the New Deal programs. Steagall was put there to put the banks back in check but it was never going to last. Capitalism was only going to head off in once direction after the war such was the determination to get industry booming again and getting those blocks removed was all down to doing it at to right time.

And no Atlee wasn't a radical and Labour never could be when near to, or in power. Absolutely impossible. It's selling point was never a true reflection of what it could do in the mainstream. Roosevelt had implemented similar ideas a decade previously with social security, so it wasn't so revolutionary. But that was before he sold out the West to the Middle East for oil as a long term security. Came back to bite them on the arse that one.

Well the Oil argument could bring about a game changer in our lifetime. That game changer is called Fusion Energy......the principle of harnessing the energy of an artificial star kept in a containment field.

At that point the dependence on foreign oil diminishes and this rich potentates lose their grip on power, all without a shot being fired (well perhaps a trifle exaggerated)

Countries can say to the gulf states and Russia, sorry we don't need your natural resources anymore so we won't be doing business or diplomacy with you. You're on your own.....and furthermore go fuck yourselves.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well the Oil argument could bring about a game changer in our lifetime. That game changer is called Fusion Energy......the principle of harnessing the energy of an artificial star kept in a containment field.

At that point the dependence on foreign oil diminishes and this rich potentates lose their grip on power, all without a shot being fired (well perhaps a trifle exaggerated)

Countries can say to the gulf states and Russia, sorry we don't need your natural resources anymore so we won't be doing business or diplomacy with you. You're on your own.....and furthermore go fuck yourselves.

We're decades or perhaps centuries away from fusion power. Besides, it will be the current energy cartel that becomes the future energy cartel. That's how it works. That's what the whole global warming scam is about, ensuring the same players get the same "rights" in terms of alternative energy sources and ensuring the poor fucker in the street is lumbered with the R&D and deployment costs. It's the dilemma that the warmists just can't get their heads around no matter how hard you slap them. YES, we need to stop polluting this planet. NO, we shouldn't put the polluters in charge of the clean up (and I mean clean up, just ask Al Gore).

There's not the slightest chance of the energy monopoly being tipped over without many, many shots being fired. That's why Syria is so dangerous. The west wants to drive a natural gas pipeline right through that country. To not only relieve reliance on Russian supplies but also to directly harm the Russian economy. These confrontation points exist all over the map. Peacefully unentangling them all without pandering to vested interests isn't feasible and once you pander to those interests then whatever solution you come up with is already hopelessly compromised.

Besides, windmills and artificial stars don't keep pests away from crops, nor can they be converted to plastics or any of the other materials and by-products that drive modern society. Current solutions all involve regressive technologies that fly in the face of the hysterical warnings about the fate of the environment. This is how we know who is lying and who has what to gain. As things stand, the plan is to carry on and accelerate the shitty policies that have led mankind down a major and devastating detour and then disguise the short sightedness and expediency by having a bunch of hypnotised tree huggers do the bidding of the accountants who want the average guy in the street to fund this lunacy. It's that inversion again. Save the planet means destroy the planet. Peace means war. And so on, we know the story by now or at least we should.

The same handicap that kills competition also kills progress. Stick a vast bureaucracy in the middle of anything and the handbrake screeches. People can't get their voices heard because government sits between them and the suppliers that would otherwise have to pay attention to the spending power of consumers. As always, the problem is government. When we grow out of government then all these problems can start to solved. Until then, no chance at all.

[Kano]

Possibly but there is a hell of way to go yet to make that a stable source of energy. They are currently in the stages of containing it for seconds at a time, so that is a time game more than anything. How much oil we have left is anyone's guess. There's always the threat of peak oil being posed before it subsides. That's why we should never have sold Flamini. Couldn't tackle for shit but could tell his biofuels from his nuclear fission. And from what I know (which isn't extensive) about fusion energy is that it could help shift our reliance away from the black stuff in that respect but it doesn't solve the manufacturing problem.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Possibly but there is a hell of way to go yet to make that a stable source of energy. They are currently in the stages of containing it for seconds at a time, so that is a time game more than anything. How much oil we have left is anyone's guess. There's always the threat of peak oil being posed before it subsides. That's why we should never have sold Flamini. Couldn't tackle for shit but could tell his biofuels from his nuclear fission. And from what I know (which isn't extensive) about fusion energy is that it could help shift our reliance away from the black stuff in that respect but it doesn't solve the manufacturing problem.

Decades away but not centuries, the current projection by many scientists is between 20 and 40 years

There is the competing issue of climate change concerns because too many people are afraid to admit we are long past the point of no return and that children have already been born who will see fore themselves vast areas of the planet's surface is uninhabitable and that their own children won't make it to old age because of disease or starvation. I'm not even sure the inevitable can be slowed down.

I'll probably be dead by the time it really kicks in, and deep down even though it's a shame to see the potential of human advancement flushed away....i am also of the opinion that this planet could well do without it's current tenants.

[Kano]

Decades away but not centuries, the current projection by many scientists is between 20 and 40 years

There is the competing issue of climate change concerns because too many people are afraid to admit we are long past the point of no return and that children have already been born who will see fore themselves vast areas of the planet's surface is uninhabitable and that their own children won't make it to old age because of disease or starvation. I'm not even sure the inevitable can be slowed down.

I'll probably be dead by the time it really kicks in, and deep down even though it's a shame to see the potential of human advancement flushed away....i am also of the opinion that this planet could well do without it's current tenants.

That's stepping into another world of discussion when it comes to climate change. Governments and the companies running them know the increase in profit margins are unsustainable in the long term because the practical methods being used have a limit. You can only cut so many jobs, move so many factories, cut so much social support and provide so much credit before people stop having the basic ability to spend on anything.

But the very nature of capitalism means methods always have to be found to increase the bottom line. So creating fear that unless the consumer stops to save the planet we ourselves will be responsible for its destruction, is the first method being used to curb population growth. Be wary of the colour bin you use, your carbon footprint , where your food comes from what you clean your toilet with. Yes great stuff, brilliant. But it won't work because at the same time they continue to encourage us to keep buying the shit to feed the system, meaning the factories keep churning out shit on a scale that would be far more damaging than our individual activities. Fractional and meaningless percentage drops in their emission rates are then championed as progression. I wouldn't be surprised if disease or worse is the next idea on the agenda if this doesn't work. Mainstream thinking and discussion would dismiss these ideas as delusional, because so many people either swallow the dream or are scared to face up the true reality around them, but I don't see any reason at all why they shouldn't be taken deadly seriously.