UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Hydesland]

I am not sure what that has to do with what I said.

I think that a new religion took hold in the elite which says homosexuality is good and to be promoted. These people legalised homosexuality probably against popular disagreement (would be interested to see statistics but that is what they did with death penalty). In the next 40-50 years they then converted much of the population to that religion via the education system, criminal law, and straight social desirability bias. Much the same way this country converted from Paganism to Christianity or Catholicism to Anglicanism in the first place.

The difference between my theory and yours is that you think that Christianity died, probably as a result of some "inevitable" enlightenment no one specifically desired, and then all sorts of "obvious" moral changes only held back by Christianity happened, the general public leading the way. That doesn't fit the history. What happened is that elites who already didn't believe in Christian values removed them from law and two generations later the general public's view of Christianity caught up with that of 1960s elites.

By "new religion", do you mean secularism?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

But the media is a leftist establishment (I won't endorse their propagandist appropriation of the honourable word "liberal").

US 'mainstream media', sans Fox News and WSJ, is roughly moderate, centre right by European standards and centre to centre left by US standards. How do I know this? Because while the right wing complain about the """""""""""""""""""""""""""""leftist"""""""""""""""""""""""" media, people on the left, such as Glenn Greenwald accuse the media of being systemically neoconservative, and apologists for US imperialism. Both can't be true, and usually when both sides are calling you biased to the opposite side, that's a good indication that such publication is leaning closer to centre.

Rubbish. There was a big movement called Trotskyism whose main premise was the Stalin was too right wing - that doesn't make Stalin a centrist. Look at the substance of these complaints: you see that Murdoch is right wing because he helped the socialist party win an election when it had an insufficiently socialist leader. "Neoconservative" was coined as a slur term by leftists to describe other leftists who were perceived as moving, or more accurately as staying, too right wing; the slur wasn't "neo" but "conservative" and the messianic interventionism espoused by neocons isn't that of the historic American right but that of Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

having no legitimate propagandists on our side.

Fox News? Breitbart? Much of what WSJ prints? Daily Caller? Drudge Report? Countless others...

LOL. Breitbart is not legitimate. Nor is Fox. You cannot cite Breitbart or even Fox the way you could cite the NYT. Fox and Breitbart are the US equivalent of the Mail and the Express.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I am not sure what that has to do with what I said.

I think that a new religion took hold in the elite which says homosexuality is good and to be promoted. These people legalised homosexuality probably against popular disagreement (would be interested to see statistics but that is what they did with death penalty). In the next 40-50 years they then converted much of the population to that religion via the education system, criminal law, and straight social desirability bias. Much the same way this country converted from Paganism to Christianity or Catholicism to Anglicanism in the first place.

The difference between my theory and yours is that you think that Christianity died, probably as a result of some "inevitable" enlightenment no one specifically desired, and then all sorts of "obvious" moral changes only held back by Christianity happened, the general public leading the way. That doesn't fit the history. What happened is that elites who already didn't believe in Christian values removed them from law and two generations later the general public's view of Christianity caught up with that of 1960s elites.

By "new religion", do you mean secularism?

No; it's not simple absence of religion or non-involvement of religion in the state. It has defined dogma that you are not allowed to deviate from. You cannot just have any position on homosexuality in the new religion for instance; it's blasphemy - and increasingly criminalised blasphemy - not to endorse homosexuality.

[Hydesland]

Rubbish. There was a big movement called Trotskyism whose main premise was the Stalin was too right wing - that doesn't make Stalin a centrist.

But Glenn Greenwald is hardly some rabid Trotskyist is he?

"Neoconservative" was coined as a slur term by leftists to describe other leftists who were perceived as moving, or more accurately as staying, too right wing; the slur wasn't "neo" but "conservative" and the messianic interventionism espoused by neocons isn't that of the historic American right but that of Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

I only remember neoconservative coming into prominence to describe the interventionist right wing republicans associated with George Bush.

LOL. Breitbart is not legitimate. Nor is Fox. You cannot cite Breitbart or even Fox the way you could cite the NYT. Fox and Breitbart are the US equivalent of the Mail and the Express.

Wall Street Journal is definitely conservative. Washington Post has often been described as conservative leaning. I don't watch American news channels, but all I know is they're criticized both on the left as too right and the right as too left. I know that MSNBC is the only one consistently described as "liberal", the rest nobody can seem to agree what they are.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Rubbish. There was a big movement called Trotskyism whose main premise was the Stalin was too right wing - that doesn't make Stalin a centrist.

But Glenn Greenwald is hardly some rabid Trotskyist is he?

I don't know of him.

"Neoconservative" was coined as a slur term by leftists to describe other leftists who were perceived as moving, or more accurately as staying, too right wing; the slur wasn't "neo" but "conservative" and the messianic interventionism espoused by neocons isn't that of the historic American right but that of Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

I only remember neoconservative coming into prominence to describe the interventionist right wing republicans associated with George Bush.

"Neoconservativism" is a hostile label applied to a movement founded by a Trotskyite who wanted the US to be aggressive toward the USSR because in his view Stalin and followers were too right wing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

It's older than that though because the "interventionist right wing Republicans" of the 90s and 00s are really just the Democrats of 1910 to 1950 with the same messianic mission driving support for the same sorts of wars with the same sorts of aims. The truth is that the left moved ever lefter and came to oppose US interventions so that the USSR could be allowed to win the Cold War. The old leftism of FDR fell out of fashion. Some leftist wits decided to slur it as "new conservatism" rather than what it really was, old leftism. The Bush people were, far from right wing Republicans, the most left wing Republicans in history. Had there been no 9/11 Bush would have been remembered for a big state education policy.

LOL. Breitbart is not legitimate. Nor is Fox. You cannot cite Breitbart or even Fox the way you could cite the NYT. Fox and Breitbart are the US equivalent of the Mail and the Express.

Wall Street Journal is definitely conservative. Washington Post has often been described as conservative leaning. I don't watch American news channels, but all I know is they're criticized both on the left as too right and the right as too left. I know that MSNBC is the only one consistently described as "liberal", the rest nobody can seem to agree what they are.

What I read of WaPo it seems just as mouth-frothingly leftist as NYT. I guess it endorses socialists are insufficiently socialist or something. WSJ seemed centrist, like the Times in the UK: steady-eddie paper with no real ideas at all. All the legitimate TV medias in the US range from centre left to left; what these medias fear is not being banned or something but relegated to the social trash pile with Fox. Hope it happens. It's where every media belongs.

[Eastfield Lodge]

But Glenn Greenwald is hardly some rabid Trotskyist is he?

I don't know of him.

I only remember neoconservative coming into prominence to describe the interventionist right wing republicans associated with George Bush.

"Neoconservativism" is a hostile label applied to a movement founded by a Trotskyite who wanted the US to be aggressive toward the USSR because in his view Stalin and followers were too right wing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

It's older than that though because the "interventionist right wing Republicans" of the 90s and 00s are really just the Democrats of 1910 to 1950 with the same messianic mission driving support for the same sorts of wars with the same sorts of aims. The truth is that the left moved ever lefter and came to oppose US interventions so that the USSR could be allowed to win the Cold War. The old leftism of FDR fell out of fashion. Some leftist wits decided to slur it as "new conservatism" rather than what it really was, old leftism. The Bush people were, far from right wing Republicans, the most left wing Republicans in history. Had there been no 9/11 Bush would have been remembered for a big state education policy.

Wall Street Journal is definitely conservative. Washington Post has often been described as conservative leaning. I don't watch American news channels, but all I know is they're criticized both on the left as too right and the right as too left. I know that MSNBC is the only one consistently described as "liberal", the rest nobody can seem to agree what they are.

What I read of WaPo it seems just as mouth-frothingly leftist as NYT. I guess it endorses socialists are insufficiently socialist or something. WSJ seemed centrist, like the Times in the UK: steady-eddie paper with no real ideas at all. All the legitimate TV medias in the US range from centre left to left; what these medias fear is not being banned or something but relegated to the social trash pile with Fox. Hope it happens. It's where every media belongs.

But then who would we go to for our news?

In all honesty though, if we reconsider your pipe dream to be the centre ground, what's right-wing?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

But then who would we go to for our news?

Most people should just pipe down and stop pretending they understand a damn thing because they don't, or that it matters a damn what they understand because it doesn't. Reading medias doesn't give the standard IQ100, no economics knowledge, no historical knowledge person a real chip to play in the governance of his country. It just makes him a puppet on a string of someone barely less dumb than himself.

In all honesty though, if we reconsider your pipe dream to be the centre ground, what's right-wing?

Centre ground doesn't exist in the way left and right exist - centre is what is socially desirable right now which can be far to the left or far to the right. Just at the moment in the west, it's far to the left. Obviously I want to shift it right. But in a proper right wing society, relatively few people would have influence and they wouldn't get their analysis from medias.

[Eastfield Lodge]

But then who would we go to for our news?

Most people should just pipe down and stop pretending they understand a damn thing because they don't, or that it matters a damn what they understand because it doesn't. Reading medias doesn't give the standard IQ100, no economics knowledge, no historical knowledge person a real chip to play in the governance of his country. It just makes him a puppet on a string of someone barely less dumb than himself.

In all honesty though, if we reconsider your pipe dream to be the centre ground, what's right-wing?

Centre ground doesn't exist in the way left and right exist - centre is what is socially desirable right now which can be far to the left or far to the right. Just at the moment in the west, it's far to the left. Obviously I want to shift it right. But in a proper right wing society, relatively few people would have influence and they wouldn't get their analysis from medias.

So where should people get there information about current events from? Or should they just not be informed at all? That would be a furn turn of events - the first time people get wind of an invasion is when soldiers are actually marching on their streets.

Also, way to dodge the question.

[Hydesland]

I don't know of him.

He's someone who would laugh at the notion that the media is a "leftist" establishment, and he's not some rabid neo Marxist or anything, although he is a sanctimonious dullard.

"Neoconservativism" is a hostile label applied to a movement founded by a Trotskyite who wanted the US to be aggressive toward the USSR because in his view Stalin and followers were too right wing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

I think it's more obvious that he's a former Trotskyist, like Peter Hitchens.

Had there been no 9/11 Bush would have been remembered for a big state education policy.

But 9/11 did happen, so that's irrelevant. The Iraq wars, the patriot act, gitmo etc... happened.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Most people should just pipe down and stop pretending they understand a damn thing because they don't, or that it matters a damn what they understand because it doesn't. Reading medias doesn't give the standard IQ100, no economics knowledge, no historical knowledge person a real chip to play in the governance of his country. It just makes him a puppet on a string of someone barely less dumb than himself.


Centre ground doesn't exist in the way left and right exist - centre is what is socially desirable right now which can be far to the left or far to the right. Just at the moment in the west, it's far to the left. Obviously I want to shift it right. But in a proper right wing society, relatively few people would have influence and they wouldn't get their analysis from medias.

So where should people get there information about current events from? Or should they just not be informed at all?

People don't get information now; they get infotainment. And it will always be that way, because to get information you have to be capable of verifying it yourself which most people aren't.

Infotainment will probably exist in all societies but infotainment shouldn't be the mechanism by which public policy is decided.

That would be a furn turn of events - the first time people get wind of an invasion is when soldiers are actually marching on their streets.

Also, way to dodge the question.

They'd get it with their conscription papers, or when an alarm were sounded by the state. You weren't necessarily going to be told if the Germans had invaded in 1940 - what do you think "keep calm and carry on" was about?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I don't know of him.

He's someone who would laugh at the notion that the media is a "leftist" establishment, and he's not some rabid neo Marxist or anything, although he is a sanctimonious dullard.

Fine and like I said there are whole political factions that who thought Stalin was rightist and I have encountered people who think Tsar Nikolai II was leftist. Two angry voices doesn't mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

"Neoconservativism" is a hostile label applied to a movement founded by a Trotskyite who wanted the US to be aggressive toward the USSR because in his view Stalin and followers were too right wing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

I think it's more obvious that he's a former Trotskyist, like Peter Hitchens.

Sure and Hitchens has many of the same pathologies (we don't have time for that discussion though). He conceded on the minimum forced on him by events: he thinks Stalin is bad because Stalin was against his faction and probably also because he persecuted Jews. He conceded that free markets work better than socialism at achieving socialist goals like high living standards. That's more than most of them of course who never conceded anything and either died unrepentant or slid into mainstream politics as centrists. On the other hand he still says free markets are basically immoral. And his militarism against the USSR was motivated by an essentially socialist critique of the USSR. Not by care for the US national interest.

Had there been no 9/11 Bush would have been remembered for a big state education policy.

But 9/11 did happen, so that's irrelevant. The Iraq wars, the patriot act, gitmo etc... happened.

Like Valaran it would profit both of us if you didn't condense my posts. They're not all that long anyway and I don't write much that's unnecessary. Sure, Bush's term was defined by the wars: the Iraq War was left wing. It was founded on the premise that everyone in the world secretly loves social democracy and you only need to light the fuse of revolution and it will burn by itself. DIdn't quite work out that way. (Afghanistan and Guantanimo would have been pursued by any administration and criticism of them is just opportunism)

[Hydesland]

He's someone who would laugh at the notion that the media is a "leftist" establishment, and he's not some rabid neo Marxist or anything, although he is a sanctimonious dullard.

Fine and like I said there are whole political factions that who thought Stalin was rightist and I have encountered people who think Tsar Nikolai II was leftist. Two angry voices doesn't mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I think it's more obvious that he's a former Trotskyist, like Peter Hitchens.

Sure and Hitchens has many of the same pathologies (we don't have time for that discussion though). He conceded on the minimum forced on him by events: he thinks Stalin is bad because Stalin was against his faction and probably also because he persecuted Jews. He conceded that free markets work better than socialism at achieving socialist goals like high living standards. That's more than most of them of course who never conceded anything and either died unrepentant or slid into mainstream politics as centrists. On the other hand he still says free markets are basically immoral. And his militarism against the USSR was motivated by an essentially socialist critique of the USSR. Not by care for the US national interest.

But 9/11 did happen, so that's irrelevant. The Iraq wars, the patriot act, gitmo etc... happened.

Like Valaran it would profit both of us if you didn't condense my posts. They're not all that long anyway and I don't write much that's unnecessary. Sure, Bush's term was defined by the wars: the Iraq War was left wing. It was founded on the premise that everyone in the world secretly loves social democracy and you only need to light the fuse of revolution and it will burn by itself. DIdn't quite work out that way. (Afghanistan and Guantanimo would have been pursued by any administration and criticism of them is just opportunism)

Your responses are becoming increasingly esoteric, this is veering into obscurantism. Are you really suggesting Peter Hitchens is anything but a right wing conservative? Otherwise what's your point here? There's no evidence the US was interested in imposing social democracy in Iraq; democracy maybe. Again, claiming George Bush and the republicans are left wing liberals comes off as deliberately contrarian obscurantist nonsense.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Fine and like I said there are whole political factions that who thought Stalin was rightist and I have encountered people who think Tsar Nikolai II was leftist. Two angry voices doesn't mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


Sure and Hitchens has many of the same pathologies (we don't have time for that discussion though). He conceded on the minimum forced on him by events: he thinks Stalin is bad because Stalin was against his faction and probably also because he persecuted Jews. He conceded that free markets work better than socialism at achieving socialist goals like high living standards. That's more than most of them of course who never conceded anything and either died unrepentant or slid into mainstream politics as centrists. On the other hand he still says free markets are basically immoral. And his militarism against the USSR was motivated by an essentially socialist critique of the USSR. Not by care for the US national interest.


Like Valaran it would profit both of us if you didn't condense my posts. They're not all that long anyway and I don't write much that's unnecessary. Sure, Bush's term was defined by the wars: the Iraq War was left wing. It was founded on the premise that everyone in the world secretly loves social democracy and you only need to light the fuse of revolution and it will burn by itself. DIdn't quite work out that way. (Afghanistan and Guantanimo would have been pursued by any administration and criticism of them is just opportunism)

Your responses are becoming increasingly esoteric, this is veering into obscurantism. Are you really suggesting Peter Hitchens is anything but a right wing conservative? Otherwise what's your point here? There's no evidence the US was interested in imposing social democracy in Iraq; democracy maybe. Again, claiming George Bush and the republicans are left wing liberals comes off as deliberately contrarian obscurantist nonsense.

I was talking about the founder of neo-conservatism, not Peter Hitchens. I believe he retained an essentially communist world view throughout his life. George Bush wasn't far left by the standards of his time but he was left in the sense of FDR or LBJ. They're basically the same thing. And no, social democracy: read Iraq's constitution some time. Iraq the state established by neocons was further to the left politically than the US Democrats at the time.

American rightist foreign policy is that of Trump: America First; peace and trade with all nations, entangling arrangements with none; troublemakers keep OUT. Not exactly the policy of the man spreading social democracy by the sword, skewing lending standards so that millions of Mexicans could borrow money against houses they could never pay back, and whose legacy policy was meant to be the "No Child Left Behind" school reform - and would have been had policies #1 and #2 not imploded so badly.

[Eastfield Lodge]

So where should people get there information about current events from? Or should they just not be informed at all?

People don't get information now; they get infotainment. And it will always be that way, because to get information you have to be capable of verifying it yourself which most people aren't.

Infotainment will probably exist in all societies but infotainment shouldn't be the mechanism by which public policy is decided.

...How would infotainment decide public policy? If anything, wouldn't the politicians be the ones deciding the infotainment content?

[Vassenor]

People don't get information now; they get infotainment. And it will always be that way, because to get information you have to be capable of verifying it yourself which most people aren't.

Infotainment will probably exist in all societies but infotainment shouldn't be the mechanism by which public policy is decided.

...How would infotainment decide public policy? If anything, wouldn't the politicians be the ones deciding the infotainment content?

For that matter how does the news decide public policy?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

People don't get information now; they get infotainment. And it will always be that way, because to get information you have to be capable of verifying it yourself which most people aren't.

Infotainment will probably exist in all societies but infotainment shouldn't be the mechanism by which public policy is decided.

...How would infotainment decide public policy? If anything, wouldn't the politicians be the ones deciding the infotainment content?

What happens is that decisions are made by politicians who are basically dancing bears elected by morons. The morons make their decision which bear to vote for by consuming infotainment that is produced by other dancing bears. The dancing bears are instructed by academics who originally at least have something of a clue, though usually so far removed from incentives and practical experience that their ideas are already suspect before they''ve been written down.

So the way we are governed is that ideas dreamed up by the world's most effete and detached people and expounded in ten volumes of lofty prose are fed through five rounds of Chinese Whispers played by people with an attention span of five minutes and a 140 character limit. So then we end up with a society that invades Iraq, lets millions of Muslims settle, and says its definitional value is legalised sodomy which, despite the society being 2000 years old, is something we made up last Thursday. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

[Hydesland]

I was talking about the founder of neo-conservatism, not Peter Hitchens. I believe he retained an essentially communist world view throughout his life.

But nobody uses the tern "neoconservative" to describe people who advocate communism, absolutely nobody. They might claim it evolved out of people on the left who opposed Stalin/USSR (which could include communists), that's not the same thing as describing neoconservatism itself. Words have meanings, let's stick to their actual meanings rather than come up with idiosyncrasies.

George Bush wasn't far left by the standards of his time but he was left in the sense of FDR or LBJ.

What was Bush's New Deal? Was it the tax cuts on the rich?

They're basically the same thing. And no, social democracy: read Iraq's constitution some time. Iraq the state established by neocons was further to the left politically than the US Democrats at the time.

Why would republicans wish to impose a society more left wing than even the party to the left of them wishes to impose on their own country? And even if this is the case, it would almost certainly be for realpolitik reasons, and nothing to do with some idealized vision of spreading social democracy.

American rightist foreign policy is that of Trump: America First; peace and trade with all nations

He's not pursuing that strategy with Iran, NATO, or many other nations. His cabinet appointments don't suggest he will either.

Anyway, the problem is there is no coherent "right wing" foreign policy. Because right wingers have advocated both libertarian isolationism, and essentially imperialism. Both imperialism and isolationism are consistent with "<COUNTRY> FIRST".

skewing lending standards so that millions of Mexicans could borrow money against houses they could never pay back

Is deregulating Wall St. & banking a left wing or right wing ideal? And don't come back to me with the myth about CRA's.

[Eastfield Lodge]

...How would infotainment decide public policy? If anything, wouldn't the politicians be the ones deciding the infotainment content?

What happens is that decisions are made by politicians who are basically dancing bears elected by morons. The morons make their decision which bear to vote for by consuming infotainment that is produced by other dancing bears. The dancing bears are instructed by academics who originally at least have something of a clue, though usually so far removed from incentives and practical experience that their ideas are already suspect before they''ve been written down.

So the way we are governed is that ideas dreamed up by the world's most effete and detached people and expounded in ten volumes of lofty prose are fed through five rounds of Chinese Whispers played by people with an attention span of five minutes and a 140 character limit. So then we end up with a society that invades Iraq, lets millions of Muslims settle, and says its definitional value is legalised sodomy which, despite the society being 2000 years old, is something we made up last Thursday. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

Hang on, are you religious?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I was talking about the founder of neo-conservatism, not Peter Hitchens. I believe he retained an essentially communist world view throughout his life.

But nobody uses the tern "neoconservative" to describe people who advocate communism, absolutely nobody. They might claim it evolved out of people on the left who opposed Stalin/USSR (which could include communists), that's not the same thing as describing neoconservatism itself. Words have meanings, let's stick to their actual meanings rather than come up with idiosyncrasies.

He didn't "advocate communism" and I didn't say he did. He thought that, sadly, communism had not worked out in practice as we'd like, so we should stick with capiitalism (two cheers for capitalism - count 'em, two!) until we can think of something better, while of course acknowledging that capitalism is unspeakably evil. In the meantime, we should smash the successors of Trotsky's enemies.

George Bush wasn't far left by the standards of his time but he was left in the sense of FDR or LBJ.

What was Bush's New Deal? Was it the tax cuts on the rich?

No Child Left Behind, mortgages for all

They're basically the same thing. And no, social democracy: read Iraq's constitution some time. Iraq the state established by neocons was further to the left politically than the US Democrats at the time.

Why would republicans wish to impose a society more left wing than even the party to the left of them wishes to impose on their own country? And even if this is the case, it would almost certainly be for realpolitik reasons, and nothing to do with some idealized vision of spreading social democracy.

Because they don't actually believe the people would rise up and rally around free market libertarianism - because they're not free market libertarians. They regard America as an unprincipled exception, not a model. They are from the left.

American rightist foreign policy is that of Trump: America First; peace and trade with all nations

He's not pursuing that strategy with Iran, NATO, or many other nations. His cabinet appointments don't suggest he will either.

Anyway, the problem is there is no coherent "right wing" foreign policy. Because right wingers have advocated both libertarian isolationism, and essentially imperialism. Both imperialism and isolationism are consistent with "<COUNTRY> FIRST".

How isn't he - and again with cutting inconvenient bits of the posts. NATO is an entangling arrangement. Trump is hostile to NATO. He's also hostile to multilateral trade deals that lock in economic policies but much less to bilateral trade deals with more limited scope. Five years ago you'd probably view NATO and TPP as right wing though. Why? Because five years ago America didn't have a right, just two factions of left.

And Trump has advocated open imperialism too - and been attacked as unspeakably and unthinkably right wing. He said we should take the oil. When the left says to the neocons they wanted to take the oil, the point of that attack is that the neocons have to look sheepish and embarrassed and say "no we are not trying to take the oil, we're trying to help Iraqi babies". Trump said let's take the oil because America First. And the attack "he wants war for oil" has no power because yeah he said that's exactly what he wants and it's obviously a pretty good financial deal. That is what a right looks like. The bafflement and outrage with which it was met - at least from the elite - just goes more to show that US hasn't seen a real right in a hundred years or more.

skewing lending standards so that millions of Mexicans could borrow money against houses they could never pay back

Is deregulating Wall St. & banking a left wing or right wing ideal? And don't come back to me with the myth about CRA's.

What deregulation? Under Bush it was illegal not to loan money to people to buy a house even if they were broke - on the leftist logic that economic privilege leads to a positive spiral rather than the rightist theory that people with good habits save money and people with bad habits waste money - and then the government bought the loan to lock in a profit for the private company providing it. What happened wasn't exactly some kind of mystery of the animal spirits of the market, it's exactly what any A level economics student would predict with that toxic mix of interventions.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

What happens is that decisions are made by politicians who are basically dancing bears elected by morons. The morons make their decision which bear to vote for by consuming infotainment that is produced by other dancing bears. The dancing bears are instructed by academics who originally at least have something of a clue, though usually so far removed from incentives and practical experience that their ideas are already suspect before they''ve been written down.

So the way we are governed is that ideas dreamed up by the world's most effete and detached people and expounded in ten volumes of lofty prose are fed through five rounds of Chinese Whispers played by people with an attention span of five minutes and a 140 character limit. So then we end up with a society that invades Iraq, lets millions of Muslims settle, and says its definitional value is legalised sodomy which, despite the society being 2000 years old, is something we made up last Thursday. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

Hang on, are you religious?

Not at all.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Hang on, are you religious?

Not at all.

So why are you talking about gods like that? And anyway, what's wrong with legalising homosexuality?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Not at all.

So why are you talking about gods like that?

I'm quoting Enoch Powell who was quoting Euripides. I think it can be taken as read that no one on this thread believes in the literal truth of the Greek pantheon, awesome as they are.

And anyway, what's wrong with legalising homosexuality?

Nothing as such - I don't even oppose it - but when I hear that it's "a British value" or a "fundamental value of Western civilisation" or whatever I know that I am either listening to a dancing bear or a crazy person. We had millennia of Western civilisation mostly without legalised and socially normalised homosexuality. Even if it's nice to have, it's no more than that. It's as foundational as gargoyles or soldiers wearing shakoes - just a minor quirk of a brief age.

More importantly here though, legalised sodomy really pokes Muslims in the eye. On the other hand, people doing this eye poking want millions of Muslims to live in our countries and vote in our elections. If we weren't ruled by dancing bears this wouldn't have happened.

[Hydesland]

He didn't "advocate communism" and I didn't say he did.

So it's an irrelevant non sequitur.

No Child Left Behind, mortgages for all

So these piecemeal measures are meant to offest curtailing of civil liberties, unnecessary wars + the standard republican social conservatism, so much that it makes Bush some left wing hippy?

because they're not free market libertarians. They regard America as an unprincipled exception, not a model. They are from the left.

I have never, ever, spoken to a republican whose economic views can be reasonably described as "left wing". Greg Mankiw, who was one of their most important economic advisors, could never be reasonably labelled as a left wing economist. He explicitly chose the republican party because they are, in his words, the most "free market" party. This is just insane revisionism.

How isn't he - and again with cutting inconvenient bits of the posts. NATO is an entangling arrangement.

I was referring to the "peace & trade with all nations" part. Even if we ignore his weird rhetoric about NATO, his actions towards Iran certainly don't seem to be doing this. His cabinet picks don't provide good evidence this will be his policy. His rhetoric about nuclear proliferation, or about stealing Iraq's oil, don't suggest this at all.

Five years ago you'd probably view NATO and TPP as right wing though. Why? Because five years ago America didn't have a right, just two factions of left.

Sure, TPP is on the right of the spectrum, perhaps. So are you saying his opposition to TPP is left wing?

"no we are not trying to take the oil, we're trying to help Iraqi babies".

But do you actually believe them?

Trump said let's take the oil because America First. And the attack "he wants war for oil" has no power because yeah he said that's exactly what he wants and it's obviously a pretty good financial deal. That is what a right looks like. The bafflement and outrage with which it was met - at least from the elite - just goes more to show that US hasn't seen a real right in a hundred years or more.

Nobody is disputing Trump is right wing though.

What deregulation? Under Bush it was illegal not to loan money to people to buy a house even if they were broke

Source on this. If you're referring to what I'm thinking of, that was a Clinton era policy, that was highly popular, and probably far too difficult for republicans to dismantle.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

No Child Left Behind, mortgages for all

So these piecemeal measures are meant to offest curtailing of civil liberties, unnecessary wars + the standard republican social conservatism, so much that it makes Bush some left wing hippy?

WWI and WWII were also unnecessary for the US. Still left wing wars launched by left wing presidents for left wing ideological reasons.

A right wing war would be America First: turn Iraq into a colony ruled by a governor general, take the oil and use it to fund tax cuts in the states. Or just cut off the bits of Iraq that have no oil in them (which is most of it) and let them kill each other.

because they're not free market libertarians. They regard America as an unprincipled exception, not a model. They are from the left.

I have never, ever, spoken to a republican whose economic views can be reasonably described as "left wing". Greg Mankiw, who was one of their most important economic advisors, could never be reasonably labelled as a left wing economist. He explicitly chose the republican party because they are, in his words, the most "free market" party. This is just insane revisionism.

How many neocons have you spoken to who have said the way to make America loved is to invade and force them to accept free markets? Now, invade and force them to accept democracy? It's clearly not free markets they're after. Iraq's constitution looks just like that of Germany - another American muppet state that is considerably to the left of America - and not much like the American.

How isn't he - and again with cutting inconvenient bits of the posts. NATO is an entangling arrangement.

I was referring to the "peace & trade with all nations" part. Even if we ignore his weird rhetoric about NATO, his actions towards Iran certainly don't seem to be doing this. His cabinet picks don't provide good evidence this will be his policy. His rhetoric about nuclear proliferation, or about stealing Iraq's oil, don't suggest this at all.

Yeah yeah you can make the statement not fit if you cut half of it off. You know I can also rearrange the letters in your posts to read "HMS Queen Elizabeth is right and I am wrong". Doesn't prove anything. So what's he done on NATO? Said if you want your entangling arrangement I want my pound of flesh. Then he sent Mattis to Munich and Mattis said, yeah, listen to that guy because he's not kidding and nor am I. And Mattis was meant to be the pro-NATO voice.

Five years ago you'd probably view NATO and TPP as right wing though. Why? Because five years ago America didn't have a right, just two factions of left.

Sure, TPP is on the right of the spectrum, perhaps. So are you saying his opposition to TPP is left wing?

No. Saying TPP is left wing. There are leftist reasons to oppose TPP, but Trump opposes it for rightist reasons, and those didn't exist in the public discourse 5 years ago.

"no we are not trying to take the oil, we're trying to help Iraqi babies".

But do you actually believe them?

Absolutely. They're completely sincere and nothing has ever led me to suspect otherwise. The US made a huge loss on the Iraq War.

Trump said let's take the oil because America First. And the attack "he wants war for oil" has no power because yeah he said that's exactly what he wants and it's obviously a pretty good financial deal. That is what a right looks like. The bafflement and outrage with which it was met - at least from the elite - just goes more to show that US hasn't seen a real right in a hundred years or more.

Nobody is disputing Trump is right wing though.

You are disputing that Bush is left wing. I am saying that when you look at Trump, real right winger, the differences between Bush and Obama are really just differences in tone of voice, not message at all. Which is the point.

What deregulation? Under Bush it was illegal not to loan money to people to buy a house even if they were broke

Source on this. If you're referring to what I'm thinking of, that was a Clinton era policy, that was highly popular, and probably far too difficult for republicans to dismantle.

Bush didn't just keep the policy, he reinforced and expanded it. Bush said, and probably believed, that Mexicans are natural conservatives who vote Democrat because they're not home owners. They're kept off the housing ladder by White Racists, so we just pin down those White Racists for a bit and Mexicans will get on the housing ladder and vote Republican. Whereas Trump said, more accurately, that Mexico isn't sending its best. We know Trump was more accurate because they all went broke just as the White Racists racistly predicted when they were allowed by regulation to make loans based on market data rather than politics like in the age of deregulation.

[Eastfield Lodge]

And anyway, what's wrong with legalising homosexuality?

Nothing as such - I don't even oppose it - but when I hear that it's "a British value" or a "fundamental value of Western civilisation" or whatever I know that I am either listening to a dancing bear or a crazy person. We had millennia of Western civilisation mostly without legalised and socially normalised homosexuality. Even if it's nice to have, it's no more than that. It's as foundational as gargoyles or soldiers wearing shakoes - just a minor quirk of a brief age.

More importantly here though, legalised sodomy really pokes Muslims in the eye. On the other hand, people doing this eye poking want millions of Muslims to live in our countries and vote in our elections. If we weren't ruled by dancing bears this wouldn't have happened.

It's just held up as an example of progressivism and liberalism that Britain/the West have gone for equality.

Just out of curiosity, what governance system would you have for Britain?