Brexit

PD. It'd amazing to me that, every time I post this repugnant, nauseating, atrocious video of Shaw, my friends on the left always try to justify it. It doesn't seem to shock them at all. If anybody on my side of the political spectrum had done this, I would disavow him forever and ever.
Shaw was a professional contrarian. He said things he believed, and things he didn't and left it to the listener to decide which it was. Eugenics was popular for a time among the chattering classes, and hard line materialists still flirt with the implications of humans as machines. If I'm defending Shaw it means the conversation must have taken a turn for the surreal.

I don't believe in politics or politicians. I have no faith in the liberty of the individual to make life better for the many, nor the many for the individual. I think people are deeply flawed and even the kindlier ones have feet of clay. I treat the left and right with equal disdain and mistrust enthusiasm for either. Henry Ford was an antisemitic zealot who Hitler described as an inspiration. At least Shaw kept his suggestions hypothetical.

I never suggested slavery was an exclusively Western phenomenon, I said it was often a support for someone else's idea of Utopia. We may be able to do better than the EU, but as I said originally, the solution won't be found among the people in that film. I'm tired of arguing with straw men, and the supposition that if I don't believe in this I must believe in that. Put me down for neither. Jesus's disciples had him down as a political leader and he continually upbraided them for their error. I don't believe politics is the solution for the human problem. Ever.
 
Shaw was a professional contrarian. He said things he believed, and things he didn't and left it to the listener to decide which it was. Eugenics was popular for a time among the chattering classes, and hard line materialists still flirt with the implications of humans as machines. If I'm defending Shaw it means the conversation must have taken a turn for the surreal.

I don't believe in politics or politicians. I have no faith in the liberty of the individual to make life better for the many, nor the many for the individual. I think people are deeply flawed and even the kindlier ones have feet of clay. I treat the left and right with equal disdain and mistrust enthusiasm for either. Henry Ford was an antisemitic zealot who Hitler described as an inspiration. At least Shaw kept his suggestions hypothetical.

I never suggested slavery was an exclusively Western phenomenon, I said it was often a support for someone else's idea of Utopia. We may be able to do better than the EU, but as I said originally, the solution won't be found among the people in that film. I'm tired of arguing with straw men, and the supposition that if I don't believe in this I must believe in that. Put me down for neither. Jesus's disciples had him down as a political leader and he continually upbraided them for their error. I don't believe politics is the solution for the human problem. Ever.

Shit, Gabriel, I love what you wrote and I agree with it practically verbatim (except your opinion of Shaw) . The thing is, since I hate f****** politicians, I hate the political totalitarian entity called the EU. I agree with you on everything, except this EU business. As to liberty: I agree there will be no political solutions for homo sapiens, which is intrincically flawed. I believe in liberty and non-aggression for ethical reasons, not as panacea for humanity's flaws.
 
Last edited:
Shaw was not a contrarian. He believed the things he wrote in his essays and prefaces. It's pretty obvious. He wasn't pulling a Swift. I don't know why my fellow liberals defend him. Anyway, all institutions and states become corrupt over time. This isn't a political problem, it is a human problem. That is what we need to work on, but the question is ...how? We need to work on that, but I, myself, don't even know where to start.
 
Shaw was not a contrarian. He believed the things he wrote in his essays and prefaces. It's pretty obvious. He wasn't pulling a Swift. I don't know why my fellow liberals defend him. Anyway, all institutions and states become corrupt over time. This isn't a political problem, it is a human problem. That is what we need to work on, but the question is ...how? We need to work on that, but I, myself, don't even know where to start.
I've no idea how Shaw came into the discussion, he always seemed a bit bonkers. Charming, but definitely playing to a different drummer. I don't answer to the liberal label either, which has become shorthand for progressive and right on. All political terminology for human conduct is a form of reductionism.

My first introduction to the concept of liberalism was an evil tempered school teacher whose car was adorned with Liberal party stickers. Re-acquaintance with Liberals in the intervening decades has never been a positive experience, they would sell their granny for a whiff of power and adopt an extremist stance with those who disagrees with them. Anyone seeking political power is necessarily unsuited for it, knowing what's best for everyone else would be a pathological condition if it wasn't an establishment career. Personal enlightenment is worth a hat full of policy initiatives.
 
I've no idea how Shaw came into the discussion, he always seemed a bit bonkers. Charming, but definitely playing to a different drummer. I don't answer to the liberal label either, which has become shorthand for progressive and right on. All political terminology for human conduct is a form of reductionism.

My first introduction to the concept of liberalism was an evil tempered school teacher whose car was adorned with Liberal party stickers. Re-acquaintance with Liberals in the intervening decades has never been a positive experience, they would sell their granny for a whiff of power and adopt an extremist stance with those who disagrees with them. Anyone seeking political power is necessarily unsuited for it, knowing what's best for everyone else would be a pathological condition if it wasn't an establishment career. Personal enlightenment is worth a hat full of policy initiatives.

I am not sure why Shaw entered the conversation either!

When I said my fellow liberals, I did not mean you, Gabriel. I meant that I have seen them do mental gymnastics trying to defend Shaw and his opinions. It's just at some point you have to say, "Come on...."

I probably should not have said "liberal" as I know it has different meanings to different people and countries. I meant "liberal" in the classical sense, and I am certainly not a "progressive." I am liberal in that I believe in individual liberty balanced against the state and a civil libertarian. I do not like the direction of so-called liberal politics (which I think is actually "progressive" politics now) with its bullying and no-platforming of differing opinions and shutting down discussion. I hope that helps and clarifies what I meant.

I am not British but am following the Brexit with interest. I enjoy reading these discussions, but perhaps in this case, I should have kept my trap shut! :)
 
I am not sure why Shaw entered the conversation either!

When I said my fellow liberals, I did not mean you, Gabriel. I meant that I have seen them do mental gymnastics trying to defend Shaw and his opinions. It's just at some point you have to say, "Come on...."

I probably should not have said "liberal" as I know it has different meanings to different people and countries. I meant "liberal" in the classical sense, and I am certainly not a "progressive." I am liberal in that I believe in individual liberty balanced against the state and a civil libertarian. I do not like the direction of so-called liberal politics (which I think is actually "progressive" politics now) with its bullying and no-platforming of differing opinions and shutting down discussion. I hope that helps and clarifies what I meant.

I am not British but am following the Brexit with interest. I enjoy reading these discussions, but perhaps in this case, I should have kept my trap shut! :)
No offence taken, I was simply pointing out that liberal has become an oxymoronic term for some uncompromising political attitudes. Be-liberal-or-else is the new motto, and as you say includes the suppression of free speech and the horrors of political correctness.
One example would be my attitude to abortion, which I consider to be intrinsically wrong based on the fact we don't know what consciousness is or when it begins and those who claim to are lying. This is no way diminishes the social deprivation or sexual manipulation which often accompanies pre-natal killing, or seeks to condemn women who feel they have no alternative, but I want the right to point out my reasons why I think decapitating children in the womb is a thoroughly bad thing without the assumption that my opinions are the result of insensitivity or stupidity. Ditto euthanasia.

I reject the label conservative for believing such interventions to be socially and medically suspect, and want greater guarantees than their proponents can currently offer on these and many other things. Shaw was a kook but also a man of his time. Huxley was saying not dissimilar things after WW2 and was lauded by the scientific establishment. Eugenics is always lurking with those who identify as "free thinkers" and it stinks as much as it always did.
 
No offence taken, I was simply pointing out that liberal has become an oxymoronic term for some uncompromising political attitudes. Be-liberal-or-else is the new motto, and as you say includes the suppression of free speech and the horrors of political correctness.
One example would be my attitude to abortion, which I consider to be intrinsically wrong based on the fact we don't know what consciousness is or when it begins and those who claim to are lying. This is no way diminishes the social deprivation or sexual manipulation which often accompanies pre-natal killing, or seeks to condemn women who feel they have no alternative, but I want the right to point out my reasons why I think decapitating children in the womb is a thoroughly bad thing without the assumption that my opinions are the result of insensitivity or stupidity. Ditto euthanasia.

I reject the label conservative for believing such interventions to be socially and medically suspect, and want greater guarantees than their proponents can currently offer on these and many other things. Shaw was a kook but also a man of his time. Huxley was saying not dissimilar things after WW2 and was lauded by the scientific establishment. Eugenics is always lurking with those who identify as "free thinkers" and it stinks as much as it always did.

Yes, I think things like abortion, especially late-term abortion, and euthanasia should be allowed to be debated without cries of bigotry and discrimation.

I have actually read a great deal about eugenics, and I do truly believe it is still ongoing. They just disguise the language they use, because Nazism gave it a bad name. Bill Gates is an example.
 
Yes, I think things like abortion, especially late-term abortion, and euthanasia should be allowed to be debated without cries of bigotry and discrimation.

I have actually read a great deal about eugenics, and I do truly believe it is still ongoing. They just disguise the language they use, because Nazism gave it a bad name. Bill Gates is an example.

Planned Parenthood founder, curiously, was a egenecist: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
 
I shall spend much of tomorrow doing a final Brexit leafleting - then all that is left to do, is vote LEAVE on Thursday.

David
Having looked at the data and propaganda from both sides, the information is unprecedentedly poor but in many ways typical of political debate today. The entire in-out campaigns are predicated on emotion. It is a fear based discourse. From what I can tell no one has the faintest idea what the alternatives entail. People don't know how the EU or the rest of the world will react or what will replace it. It's also an age based split between young in-ers and older out-ers, which is not a good guide to the future.

Given the lack of objective information and the play of emotion, I shall be doing the only sensible thing and abstaining. I refuse to play political guessing games.
 
Having looked at the data and propaganda from both sides, the information is unprecedentedly poor but in many ways typical of political debate today. The entire in-out campaigns are predicated on emotion. It is a fear based discourse. From what I can tell no one has the faintest idea what the alternatives entail. People don't know how the EU or the rest of the world will react or what will replace it. It's also an age based split between young in-ers and older out-ers, which is not a good guide to the future.

Given the lack of objective information and the play of emotion, I shall be doing the only sensible thing and abstaining. I refuse to play political guessing games.
I suspect like most elections, life will change very little for most, whatever the result.
 
I suspect like most elections, life will change very little for most, whatever the result.
The result is likely to be decided by a tiny majority, perhaps even a single percentage point. This will offer no clear mandate either way. If Britain remains in the EU the campaign will have opened wounds about the wider aims and methods of the European parliament, discontent that is unlikely to be assuaged by a marginal IN vote. If Britain votes to leave critics will monitor every word of the pro-Brexit politicians and each movement in balance of payments, wages and interest rates. Either way people will be judged on how they voted in the referendum for a generation.

The most likely outcome of a British exit will be to mobilise discontent throughout Europe about the aims of the EU, leading to widespread referendums. Even France and Germany are not immune from existential crisis regarding the union, and IMO there will be a domino effect the end result of which is impossible to call, not only in the major powers of Europe but especially in the periphery, the Balkans, Turkey and other EU hopefuls, which Russia will view as both destabilising and to its potential advantage.
Possible Brexit outcomes range from virtually no effect - Britain has always dragged its heels on co-operation with the European mainland and they'll be glad to see the back of us - to a pre-WW1 style series of alliances based on racial and cultural precedents.

If we stay the short term benefits will be that Britain gets a healthy financial cushion and perhaps increased power of veto. If Britain leaves it will mean aggravated financial upheaval in markets, at least until the picture settles down. The longer term picture is impossible to call, and no one on either side has given me any reason to believe they have a handle on an expanded or an EU-less Europe. Personally, I'm discomfited by a number of Brexit films including a close up of Oliver Cromwell's statue as a model of British resistance against international oppression. It took an unnecessary civil war begun by financial interests to prove Cromwell's point, after which the country was plunged into a fearful and militaristic dark age. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the campaign, the television producers appear not to know their history by hoping for a repeat.
 
As I see it, the EU has acquired some of the qualities of an empire - in particular, it is obsessed with expansion, even while it is failing to resolve a number of problems inside the territory it already 'owns'. That is the number one danger from the EU, and is why we should leave.

Many years ago, the EU was undoubtedly a force for peace. However the modern EU lusted after the Ukraine, and started a minor war that could have become a direct East-West conflagration.

The EU has also forced Greece into a terrible situation, that may well produce an extreme right wing response.

Europe would be far safer as a series of independent states. For example, although Cameron was happy to grandstand by going round whipping up sanctions against President Putin, he would (I think) never have started messing with the Ukraine on his own.

I do agree that the debate has been terrible, but that seemed to start by a desperate attempt by the Remain to up the rhetoric. For example, the Leave campaign highlighted the huge amount - £350 million a week that goes to Brussels. This was described as a 'lie' by the Remain campaign because there is a rebate (negotiated by Margaret Thatcher) that reduces our yearly spend somewhat (everything involving the EU is grotesquely complicated and opaque).

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

If the Remain had been more moderate, and admitted that despite rebate we spend a huge amount on the EU, but a technical adjustment to the figure was appropriate, perhaps the tone would have been more moderate. Instead they tried to come out with a set of ever more frightening scenarios if we leave the EU to try to scare everyone into voting to stay in.

It will be very worrying if we don't achieve Brexit.

David
 
Back
Top