66 replies to this topic

[rashlan]

Voting BNP will help things rashlan. The Conservatives want to throw £13 billion pound out the window in the form of foreign aid. At a time when the government is saving every pound it can, we can't afford to waste £13 billion, that's jsut for starters, let alone the Wars that the conservatives wan't to keep us in. oh and the multi billion cost of EU membership.

Yes i totally agree about the foreign aid but the BNP want to renationalise everything. Is that affordable? Do we really want millions more in the public sector enjoying overly generous pensions while the rest in the private sector bear the burden?

[chris w]

Certain traditions are integral to the nations culture.

Isn't aging and death also integral to being human ? And I wouldn't mind destroying them.

To say that certain traditions are integral to a nation's culture is exactly like saying "humans age and die" - it doesn't mean anything about wheter this is something to be valued. If in certain parts of the world they mutilate girls by cutting out their clitori, it is integral to those cultures and horryfing as well. But the conservatist ( not libertarian ) would say that this should not be changed since it was always like that. Sorry, but no matter how twist the definition of "conservatist" things that go against the order of nature ( like curing aging ) are anti - conservative.

Singapore and Honkong are good examples of merging capitalism with "traditional values" and in the first case - with authoritarism ( like getting death penalty for any ammount of illegal drugs ).

Your still associating conservatism with an extremely narrow definition of it and i just don't think it applies to the discussion.

Ok, I will stop here. I just don't see anyhow in the world how can British conservatists ( or any party calling itself "conservative" ) and transhumanism go together in whatever circumstances, that's all. I think that redesigning human biology so that we wouldn't die is one of the least conservative things one could think of .

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 12:13 AM.

[rwac]

Ok, I will stop here. I just don't see anyhow in the world how can British conservatists ( or any party calling itself "conservative" ) and transhumanism go together in whatever circumstances, that's all. I think that redesigning human biology so that we wouldn't die is one of the least conservative things one could think of .

The point is that you don't have to convince them about transhumanism being a good thing, you won't be able to convince any government. All you have to do is convince them to allow you to be transhumanist, and I think the conservatives will be better in that respect.

[chris w]

Ok, I will stop here. I just don't see anyhow in the world how can British conservatists ( or any party calling itself "conservative" ) and transhumanism go together in whatever circumstances, that's all. I think that redesigning human biology so that we wouldn't die is one of the least conservative things one could think of .

The point is that you don't have to convince them about transhumanism being a good thing, you won't be able to convince any government. All you have to do is convince them to allow you to be transhumanist, and I think the conservatives will be better in that respect.

Ok, but only if the hipotetical conservative is in fact libertarian - pro free market, culturally progressive, so to me - conservative in name only, and not a Thatcher type - pro free market, but traditional . And I don't know what the ratio of each among British Cons is, I mean some of this guys still like to strap their horse and go foxhunting, so I'm not sure how they would react to somebody sticking a bio implant in his neck or something, if they allowed, then more in spite than thanks to being conservative.

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 02:53 AM.

[rwac]

Ok, but only if the hipotetical conservative is in fact libertarian - pro free market, culturally progressive, so to me - conservative in name only, and not a Tatcher type - pro free market, but traditional . And I don't know what the ratio of each among British Cons is, I mean some of this guys still like to strap their horse and go foxhunting, so I'm not sure how they would react to somebody sticking a bio implant in his neck.

Thing is, even traditional conservatives have more respect for freedom than lefty types.

There's a reason why even a thing like supplements are much more restricted in Europe than the US. If they dislike the idea of using supplements, why would you expect transhumanism to fare any better ?

[AdamSummerfield]

Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats.

I will be voting for the Liberal Democrats tomorrow. They are the least authoritarian of the three main parties. They are most likely to legalise drug use, prostitution, decrease CCTV, etc. They're also the most scientifically-friendly party (by quite a margin).

Conservatives certainly aren't the best choice, I know people who lived in the eighties and none of them will vote Conservative again.
The BNP is certainly racist, it's a whites-only party. Or it was until the government forced them to change that.

[chris w]

I'll be voting British National Party, although none seem to really have any connection to LE I suppose the British National Party will have a positive effect, merely by freeing up tax money for, and commiting to, increased funding for research universities.

Am, aren't the BNP also a bunch of stone age idiots that as as far as a year ago were "whites only" party ? Griffin can dress in the sharpest suit, but he still is what he is.

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 11:14 AM.

[chris w]

Thing is, even traditional conservatives have more respect for freedom than lefty types.

There's a reason why even a thing like supplements are much more restricted in Europe than the US. If they dislike the idea of using supplements, why would you expect transhumanism to fare any better ?

I don't know how respect for one's freedom mixes well with requring obedience to the authorities/authority of tradition and religion, that since the dawn of modern politics people who described themselves as conservatives were enforcing, so it was pretty much respect for freedom, as long as "freedom'' was what they perceived it to be and for those deemed worthy. For most part of time being conservative equaled being close minded and concentrating on what people should and not what they have the right to, to me libertarians are not conservatists exactly because of that. Was abolitionism a conservative force in its times ? Or Civil Liberties Movement ? Those were all the "lefty types". The slave owners / racist whites were the conservative ones as described by themselves even, because they wanted to "conserve" the social order seen as just and God given.

This is from Politics of Transhumanism ( 2002 ) by James Hughes, http://www.changesur...itics.htm#_ftn1 :

In a survey of extropian list participants conducted in February and March
of 2002, 56% of the respondents identified as "libertarian" or "anarchist/self-governance," with another 15% committed to (generally minarchist) alternative political visions (ExiCommunity Polls, 2002). As for the rest, 5% were "US-style conservatives or moderates," 18% were "US-style liberal to left," 15% were "Other" and 7% "Apolitical.") The smallest number identify themselves as conservative. I rest my case. To me being "conservative transhumanist" is like being "religious atheist"

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 11:45 AM.

[rwac]

Was abolitionism a conservative force in its times ? Or Civil Liberties Movement ?

Both abolition, and the civil rights were Republican.
Abraham Lincoln: Republican
Martin Luther King: Republican

In a survey of extropian list participants conducted in February and March
of 2002, 56% of the respondents identified as "libertarian" or "anarchist/self-governance," with another 15% committed to (generally minarchist) alternative political visions (ExiCommunity Polls, 2002). As for the rest, 5% were "US-style conservatives or moderates," 18% were "US-style liberal to left," 15% were "Other" and 7% "Apolitical.") The smallest number identify themselves as conservative. I rest my case. To me being "conservative transhumanist" is like being "religious atheist"

I would fit into the minarchist category.
However, I believe that working with the Republicans (or the right) is more useful than working with the left.

The Democrats (or the left in general) have no room whatsoever for libertarians, or freedom in general.

[rashlan]

Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats.

I will be voting for the Liberal Democrats tomorrow. They are the least authoritarian of the three main parties. They are most likely to legalise drug use, prostitution, decrease CCTV, etc. They're also the most scientifically-friendly party (by quite a margin).

Conservatives certainly aren't the best choice, I know people who lived in the eighties and none of them will vote Conservative again.
The BNP is certainly racist, it's a whites-only party. Or it was until the government forced them to change that.

In 1976 The Labour government had to go to the IMF for a bail out as the country was virtually bankrupt. Margaret Thatcher came to power with a country in ruin, She made lots of tough decisions and is still hated for it. It's a case of History repeating itself once again. Have Labour ever been in power without trashing the economy ?

Edited by rashlan, 05 May 2010 - 04:50 PM.

[thatperson]

Our kids will be out of school on voting day, their school is our local voting location. My eldest in Secondary school will be participating in a school vote and I'm quite interested in how the British youth will vote--it is a good indicator so far, in my opinion, that she and most of her friends or Liberal Democrat supporters.

I wouldn't hold your hopes lol, in 2005 my school did a vote and lib dems got 72%. Now I wonder why they want to lower the voting age

[chris w]

Was abolitionism a conservative force in its times ? Or Civil Liberties Movement ?

Both abolition, and the civil rights were Republican.
Abraham Lincoln: Republican
Martin Luther King: Republican

There is a certain existing part of the social structure ( slavery ). There are people who say that it is good/natural/integral etc and they want to support it. These people concerning this part are then "conservative", because they oppose change.

On the other side you have people who say that it is not good - they are thus "anticonservative" with this issue.

When Lincoln was against slavery, then he was being socially progressive ( the antithesis of conservation ) about it and it doesn't matter that at those times abolitionists were called Republicans and pro slavery people Democrats, it matters what their exact stance was. Republican - anticonservative about slavery, Democrats - for it, so conservative. And later it's not like Martin King was mentally in the same soup as Strom Thurmond right ? even if both formally Republicans at some time.Thurmond turned Republican exactly because he was for segregation, as Republicans became the conservative party and Democrats the anticonservative one.

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 08:43 PM.

[chris w]

However, I believe that working with the Republicans (or the right) is more useful than working with the left.

To one mornig wake up in country named Halliburton that is in war with everybody militarilly weak enough but with essential resources. Are people who don't believe in the state the right ones to run it ? Maybe to first mess things up ( like with FEMA ) and then say "See ? I told you it doesn't work."

Science - wise, remember it was Bush banning state funding of embryo stem cells research and Obama the one lifting it.

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 08:58 PM.

[rwac]

Science - wise, remember it was Bush banning state funding of embryo stem cells research and Obama the one lifting it.

The GOP is not perfect, but it's way, way better than letting America being run into the ground by the Dems.

[rwac]

Strom Thurmond

You say Strom Thurmond, I say Robert Byrd, Kleagle of the KKK.

Change may be a great election slogan, but it's meaningless without specifying the exact kind of change.
Change is not always for the good.

[chris w]

Change may be a great election slogan, but it's meaningless without specifying the exact kind of change.
Change is not always for the good.

Yes, so I will never look at Obama like he was some kind of golden philosopher - messiah leading his people through the Red Sea, and it seems like he too might be tempted by corporate money talk sooner or later ( the latest rule of Supreme Court, and now he looks like Ulissess trying not to be charmed by the sexy sirens' song ), but still to me that man as for now represents the brighter side of the moon, when he starts another unjustified war, or in other way proves to be the boogeyman that The Right paints him to be, promise I will back down with embarassement.

Edited by chris w, 05 May 2010 - 11:04 PM.

[Alex Libman]

Abraham Lincoln: Republican
Martin Luther King: Republican

Major league a$$h0les both of them. (Links added in quote.)

(Not that I'm defending Socialists A, the democrats.)

To one mornig wake up in country named Halliburton that is in war with everybody militarilly weak enough but with essential resources.

A "country named Halliburton" is what socialism looks like.

Science - wise, remember it was Bush banning state funding of embryo stem cells research and Obama the one lifting it.

There is nothing scientific about using violence to pay for research.

(Not that I'm defending Socialists B - Bush was just a different marketing campaign for the same statist product.)

Edited by Alex Libman, 07 May 2010 - 01:00 PM.

[chris w]

There is nothing scientific about using violence to pay for research.

If the "violent state" science saves my ass from dying then tax me all you want.

Edited by chris w, 07 May 2010 - 01:31 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Abraham Lincoln: Republican
Martin Luther King: Republican

Yea, dude, that is brilliant stuff right there. Especially the piece by Marcus Epstein, the retard that karate chops random black women on the street after screaming certain racial slurs.

[Alex Libman]

If the "violent state" science saves my ass from dying then tax me all you want.

But it doesn't "save your ass from dying", in all probability it contributes to your ass dying sooner.

You need to understand that government is not a magic wand that makes things appear out of the thin air! It is a monopoly on violence covered up by a P.R. machine that reinvests some of the capital it steals into useful things, but only pennies on the dollar. Expecting the government to achieve a net economic gain is like expecting to lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your boots!

If that money wasn't stolen by the government, the individual tax-victims would have spent it on other things instead, and people tend to have a lot more interest in living longer than they do in building 700+ military bases all over the world, throwing millions of people into prison for smoking pot, forcefully brainwashing other people's children into mindless obedience, or hiring two dozen full-time bureaucrats to screw in a light-bulb! Violent monopolies are inherently corrupt, inefficient, resistant to change, and hungry for an ever-tighter grip on ever-more power.

Yea, dude, that is brilliant stuff right there. Especially the piece by Marcus Epstein, the retard that karate chops random black women on the street after screaming certain racial slurs.

Your ad hominem attack aside, what was wrong with that piece, or the other articles in the search results I've linked to as backing for my assertion that MLK was a "major league a$$h0le"?

Edited by Alex Libman, 08 May 2010 - 04:36 AM.

[hotamali]

So its a hung parliament? Are the Tories gonna get it or what?

[chris w]

Abraham Lincoln: Republican
Martin Luther King: Republican

Major league a$$h0les both of them. (Links added in quote.)

I read the Epstein's piece about King and it seems that just being a left winger makes one a "major league asshole".
The only things that are left standing there for me is the plagiarazing thing and prostitutes paid with with SCLC bucks, he should not have done it, period. As for others :

"He believed our nation was born in genocide, and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners" - because that is just a blatant lie, right ?

"FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs" - well, bring on the tar and feathers.

On Supreme Court's decision to ban school prayer :
"I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right" - so wrong, so wrong !

On Reagan :
"When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events" - again, a disatreous lack of insight.

On economy :
"Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism…" - how on Earth somebody could ever say this ? Every child knows capitalism is god's best creation.

"Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective" - yeah, sounds like a big time douschebag to me.

Edited by chris w, 08 May 2010 - 01:34 PM.

[Alex Libman]

I read the Epstein's piece about King and it seems that just being a left winger makes one a "major league asshole".

I don't care about the extramarital affairs, but financial corruption is indeed indicative of his true personality. MLK was a two-faced political opportunist - precisely what the Soviets were looking for, and he was very much open to extending those ties. The Soviet Union correctly identified America's racial divide as its soft underbelly and positioned itself to thrust a dagger in full force. I also consider MLK to be a representative of "religious communism", a particularly dangerous political weapon the Soviet Union could have used against the world with devastating results!

MLK could have been "just another commie asshole", but it's his exaggerated legacy -- government-enforced holiday and all -- that made him "major league".

"Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism…" - how on Earth somebody could ever say this ? Every child knows capitalism is god's best creation.

Capitalism is man's best creation - and if every child in the world knew this the world would be a much better place.


(Getting back on topic...)

So its a hung parliament? Are the Tories gonna get it or what?

Now the three stooges get to play "let's make a deal", and an alliance can still form either way. Then they go to "Her Majesty" and rub off some of her "divinely granted magic" to "form" a "new" "government", ritualizing what would otherwise be considered theft and slavery on a massive scale into something that the dumb masses will accept as legitimate.

[AdamSummerfield]

Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats.

I will be voting for the Liberal Democrats tomorrow. They are the least authoritarian of the three main parties. They are most likely to legalise drug use, prostitution, decrease CCTV, etc. They're also the most scientifically-friendly party (by quite a margin).

Conservatives certainly aren't the best choice, I know people who lived in the eighties and none of them will vote Conservative again.
The BNP is certainly racist, it's a whites-only party. Or it was until the government forced them to change that.

In 1976 The Labour government had to go to the IMF for a bail out as the country was virtually bankrupt. Margaret Thatcher came to power with a country in ruin, She made lots of tough decisions and is still hated for it. It's a case of History repeating itself once again. Have Labour ever been in power without trashing the economy ?

The economic troubles in 1976 were global.

[rashlan]

Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats.

I will be voting for the Liberal Democrats tomorrow. They are the least authoritarian of the three main parties. They are most likely to legalise drug use, prostitution, decrease CCTV, etc. They're also the most scientifically-friendly party (by quite a margin).

Conservatives certainly aren't the best choice, I know people who lived in the eighties and none of them will vote Conservative again.
The BNP is certainly racist, it's a whites-only party. Or it was until the government forced them to change that.

In 1976 The Labour government had to go to the IMF for a bail out as the country was virtually bankrupt. Margaret Thatcher came to power with a country in ruin, She made lots of tough decisions and is still hated for it. It's a case of History repeating itself once again. Have Labour ever been in power without trashing the economy ?

The economic troubles in 1976 were global.

Funny, the UK was the only major country needing to be bailed out by the IMF and suffering rolling blackouts. Can you point to another time in British history, when we were bailed out by the IMF?
Socialism just isnt practical in a global economy. It makes it impossible to compete with other, fiscally responsible, low tax countries.

Edited by rashlan, 12 May 2010 - 06:42 PM.

[Alex Libman]

Unfortunately there are very few "fiscally responsible, low tax countries" in the world today, and most of them are only able to achieve that fiscal discipline by controlling their public opinion quite a bit (ex. Singapore). Emerging "global governance" will put ever-more pressure on all governments to homogenize, which is also what we saw with the growth of Federal power in USA and now the EU.

[rashlan]

Has anyone seen the note left by Liam Byrne for the new Chief Secretary ? 'Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left' link

Edited by rashlan, 17 May 2010 - 04:50 PM.

[rashlan]

Has anyone seen the note left by Liam Byrne for the new Chief Secretary ? 'Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left' link

Disgusting bunch of nationwreckers.
In 1997 when Gordon Brown was informed by some underling who’d looked in the piggy-bank left by the conservative government , “it’s much better than we thought” – he replied like the graceless oaf he is — “what de’ye want me to do – write them a f***ing thank-you letter?”

Why can they not be prosecuted for fraud and theft?

[captainbeefheart]

The BNP had 13,000 paying members at the 2007 leak, I think it was 19,000 paid members in the second leak. And since march 2010 the membership has increased by over 7,000. so that's 26,000 at least and perhaps another 4,000 inbetween the second leak and the membership ban. 960,000 voters in June 2009 and with turnout at like 30% I think at least 40,000 of the remaining millions would have voted BNP.

Not sure where you're getting your figures from but there very very wrong...

[...] The problems Capitalism, and largely unregulated markets has caused the collapsing of the banking system. [...]

Debunked elsewhere...

Ha, by libertarian crack pots, yeah... Which is totally based on flawed starting point. But what amuses me is these people actually think there some how free thinkers when this sort of ideology has been what has been pushed by the state for the last thirty years. Of course we have regulation, but a bare amount because it's just not possible to have capitalism without regulation, even the ones that lead us aren't that stupid, because the horrors that would occur because of it would be a violent upraising once peoples standards of living rocketed down...

Edited by captainbeefheart, 19 May 2010 - 12:03 PM.

[chris w]

[...] The problems Capitalism, and largely unregulated markets has caused the collapsing of the banking system. [...]

Debunked elsewhere...

Ha, by libertarian crack pots, yeah... Which is totally based on flawed starting point. But what amuses me is these people actually think there some how free thinkers when this sort of ideology has been what has been pushed by the state for the last thirty years. Of course we have regulation, but a bare amount because it's just not possible to have capitalism without regulation, even the ones that lead us aren't that stupid, because the horrors that would occur because of it would be a violent upraising once peoples standards of living rocketed down...

Concur, the only reason why Libertarianism might seem reasonable is because it has never happened anywhere in the real world, maybe in few communities counting dozens here and there like first Puritan colonies comming close ( and actually primitive hunter - gatherer groups are mostly egalitarian, if you count out the chief and his clique, there is no stratification, so it's not like free market is somehow "natural" and communism "unnatural" ), so they have only neat theories on their side and guess what ? It won't happen, no politician is that stupid to let it all go freelly and just see what happens next with the country, perhaps when we start to colonize space, then they can try everything they want and I wish them well in other solar systems, but untill then - keep dreaming your dream guys !

Edited by chris w, 19 May 2010 - 01:22 PM.