Because The United Kingdom?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well as far as the Labour leader, he has been steadfast as far as getting a ceasefire, and the hostages being handed over. There is no gap between the Labour leadership and the Conservatives. The Greens have no connection to labour, and are in competition with them.

As far as the pro hamas white protesters, I believe its a mix, between the extreme left, whom by the numbers are not as numerous as anything ive seen in your own country. And maybe even opportunitistic anti semites, whom will jump on board any ship if it means getting the Jews out.

The problem is, you have a bipolar country. You are either Democrat, or Republican. The UK simply doesnt work like that. Yes, it has a 2.5 presentational system, but that doesnt mean there cant be strange bedfellows whom jump ship at the first opportunity. We just had a Conservative MP jump ship to the Labour party the other day. Can you conceive of such a thing ever happening in your system these days? I cant.

You want an example of this? When we were voting in 1973 to join the EEC, there were two people, friends even, whom campaigned against joining Europe. One was Anthony Wedgewood Benn. The other was Enoch Powell. If you want example of what thats like, thats just like AOC working hand in glove with MTG.

Things here dont work like in your own country, they are a lot more simple and a lot more complex.

 

 

[rmgill]

No there are further distinctions between our DNC and GOP. Our commies are either green or Democrat or outright commies (Socialist party proper). Same as our Libertarians who are either pot smoking dopes as Libertarian Party or work inside of the GOP. 
 

And my point still stands. Much of the folks behind the Critical Theory bull crap are some flavor of marxist, whether they realize or not.  This is true in the US, Britain and Europe. Much of your Greens, and ours, are really marxists. Green on the outside, red on the  inside. Aka watermelon party. 

[rmgill]

PJW on the current state of Britain…

 

the call to prayer in the train station is interesting. 
 

 

[DB]

On 5/1/2024 at 8:36 PM, sunday said:

Are you sure of that? No privileged classes, even in court? Hillary?

 

The reality of the situation doesn't matter in the rarefied atmosphere enveloping the debating tactics needed to Win On The Internet. A hegemony ruled by a small elite, or an Empire ruled by the administration headed by a King. Completely different.

[sunday]

Oligarchy vs Monarchy, in theory.

In practice, both are oligarchies.

[rmgill]

Hegemony however implies the US having influence over numerous other nations by virtue of size and mass of influence. We could be as properly republican and traditional as intended and still be a hegemon based on our size. The US has the UK under it's hegemonic umbrella, the UK is not subservient to the US, but the US still has heavy influence in UK foreign policy, military affairs, trade and our interest are often co-aligned with their interests. The UK is not part of the US Empire, we don't have one, we DO have a hegemonic shadow. Likewise the EU, Japan and many other nations. 


From the Roger Scrunton's dictionary of Political Thought:

hegemony

Greek: hegemon, a chief or ruler. Term used since the nineteenth century to denote the influence of one state over others; hence ‘hegemonism’, which describes the politics of those powers that cow their neighbours and dependants into submission.

In political thought the term is now as often used in the sense given to it by *Gramsci, in which it denotes the ascendancy of a *class, not only in the economic sphere, but through all social, political and ideological spheres, and its ability thereby to persuade other classes to see the world in terms favourable to its own ascendancy. Gramsci advocated the construction of a rival hegemony, through the infiltration and transfor- mation of those small-scale institutions by which class ascendancy, once achieved, is sustained. This struggle for hegemony is seen as a transforming factor as important as any development of *productive forces, and corresponds to *Lenin’s ‘subjective conditions’ for revolution.

empire

Literally, rule or territory of an emperor (Latin: imperator), a title now of vague meaning, attached to certain kinds of *monarchy, but almost entirely in disuse. The term has been applied to states characterized:

(i) by their magnitude in area, population and power, including several *nations, peoples or subordi- nate states of different race or culture; and/or:

(ii) by their origin in conquest by a dominant tribe or nation which continues to form the ruling group and to monopolize *coercion; and/or:

(iii) by their political structure vest- ing supreme authority in a single supreme government (the imperial or *metropolitan power) from whose grant all local authority is derived; and/or:

(iv) by a theory of potentially universal jurisdiction, sanctioned by a religion, law or ideology that tran- scends national boundaries.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well we could define the late British Empire as a 'Hegemon', with the Dominion of Canada, Dominion of Australia, Dominion of New Zealand and Dominion of South Africa being the most self evident example of this truth. They had independence, in some cases even had their own Empires, yes still came under the imperial umbrella.

Basically, there isnt quite as much difference between an Empire and a Hegenomy as you might like to think.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hegemon-and-hegemony#:~:text=A hegemon is a country with the economic%2C,a degree of informal control known as hegemony.

Im not complaining, it is indeed as you point out, useful to us. The problem comes when the US cannot reconcile what it is with what it wants to be. You might say the US Hegemon experiment is suffering from a bad case of transgenderism under the new right.

 

Edited May 4, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

The Dominions were merely evolved forms of domains. 
 

Your empire, or more accurately, Charles III’s empire has shrunk, but its still an empire. 

Edited May 4, 2024 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

I feel we are going around in circles. Well, thats Tanknet for you...

[rmgill]

What does OBE stand for? 

[Tim Sielbeck]

Order of the British Empire

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire

[Stuart Galbraith]

Or as my late father (and Grandfather) used to say, 'Other Buggers Efforts'.

 

[JWB]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I've never reckoned much to the SF command staff, since the narrative  is they are purely there to create a command slot to gain an SF badge. But it's good to know they are actually doing the job they are paid for.

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I've never reckoned much to the SF command staff, since the narrative  is they are purely there to create a command slot to gain an SF badge. But it's good to know they are actually doing the job they are paid for.

It made sense when we were in Afghan as SF forces were vitaly important. The SF need's an overall body to coordinate operations between lots of different commands for the SF.

The US realised this in 1981 when they formed the SOCOM after lessons learned from the disastrously failed operation Eagle Claw. That we took 40 years to do it speaks of incompetence to me. You need SF for operations below war.

[Stuart Galbraith]

To me, I think the SF command could do with winding up. Makes more sense to have a nato sf command. Then we can spend the money on fixing the Royal Armoured Corp.

Ultimately we didn't need such a formation in the Falklands. We probably don't now.

[TrustMe]

14 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

To me, I think the SF command could do with winding up. Makes more sense to have a nato sf command. Then we can spend the money on fixing the Royal Armoured Corp.

Ultimately we didn't need such a formation in the Falklands. We probably don't now.

There's already a Army Air core squadron of helo's dedicated to SF (I forget the number) and he SBS have there own mini sub's for example which require naval support. All these already exist and forming a Command for SF simply reinforces the status quo.

[Stuart Galbraith]

They had all these things back in 1982, but they didnt need another level of management, busy sucking up SF shoulder badges to help them manage it.

Besides, if they were so necessary, why did it take them this long to notice that SAS troopers were exceeding the rules of engagement? Credit to them for getting around to it, minus several million points for not noticing at the time.

[TrustMe]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They had all these things back in 1982, but they didnt need another level of management, busy sucking up SF shoulder badges to help them manage it.

Besides, if they were so necessary, why did it take them this long to notice that SAS troopers were exceeding the rules of engagement? Credit to them for getting around to it, minus several million points for not noticing at the time.

 

I still prefer clearer chains of command. It makes it simpler to have a dedicated organisation than a adhoc one created each time we use it.

[JWB]

 

[rmgill]

But it's not carbon dioxide. So it's all ok. Remember, CO2 is the poison. Typhus and Cholera, that helps de-populate the English. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

56 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

 

I still prefer clearer chains of command. It makes it simpler to have a dedicated organisation than a adhoc one created each time we use it.

But that is the whole point of SF. They are outside the orthodox military command structure. If they cant figure out how to create something Ad Hoc, rather than having dozens of superfluous officers spending money better spent on the regular army, then frankly they arent going to be much good at anything else.

Its the same way anything good in any organization is create. The bottom feeders come along and flock round it because the rewards are good.

Personally, Id create a single SF regiment, comprising of the SAS and the SBS, and just cut out the central command. Figuring out how to lend them RAF helicopters should be fairly basic staff work, certainly not deserving of another command structure.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 minutes ago, rmgill said:

But it's not carbon dioxide. So it's all ok. Remember, CO2 is the poison. Typhus and Cholera, that helps de-populate the English. 

Ryan, you are talking nonsense again.

Basically, this shows that privatization of our water supply was a horrific mistake. It was a mistake 40 years ago when the blessed margaret did it, and year on year its the turd that keeps floating to the top. The sooner we nationalize the water supply and put some of these lazy fat cat moneymaking bastards out of work, will be a day not too soon.

[rmgill]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ryan, you are talking nonsense again.

No, I'm repeating what the warmists say, they place the threat of CO2 higher than other pollutants or issues. You only need listen to them when they talk about pollution and they elevate CO2. For a functional example, look no further than shutting down nuke reactors while running coal plants on wood pellets. 

This disingenuous treatment of human waste is also key. California is a good example of this. But then so is London as noted above. They have how much money to put in cameras to monitor and charge people for going into London? How much money do they have for putting in proper sewage treatment systems?

It's not a priority. 

This was made clear when They cleaned up San Fran for a state visit from China, but didn't before and stopped afterwards. 

I'll bet, we could probably look at the overall council for the area that this pollution is present in London and find them spending all manner of money on CO2, Green House Gas type 'clean up' while ignoring raw sewage. 

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Basically, this shows that privatization of our water supply was a horrific mistake.

The sewage system is not your water supply. It's waste treatment and handling. Did they privatize the waste treatment system in the UK too? 

Edited May 6, 2024 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, rmgill said:

No, I'm repeating what the warmists say, they place the threat of CO2 higher than other pollutants or issues. You only need listen to them when they talk about pollution and they elevate CO2. Look no furhter than shutting down Nuke Reactors while running coal plants on wood pellets. 

California is a good example of this. But then so is London. They have how much money to put in cameras to monitor and charge people for going into London? How much money do they have for putting in proper sewage treatment systems? 

The sewage system is not your water supply. It's waste treatment and handling. Did they privatize the waste treatment system in the UK too? 

Gods sake Ryan. We live on a small island surrounded by fucking saltwater, of course its the same bloody thing! Look, they even reference this on the Thames water website.

https://www.thameswater.co.uk/

They are supposed to treat the water, and release it back into the rivers. When they get backed up, because they didnt invest in the infrastructure for 40 years because they had more important things to do, like paying out to shareholders, they release it in the rivers. This is now happening so often, they dont even report it anymore. Its the reason so many of our rivers are dead.

Oh, LONDON is getting infrastructre, years late. The rest of the country is not. We still largely have the water infrastructure the Victorians bequeathed us with, because in the good years, nobody was digging it up and replacing it. Meanwhile housing firms are still allowed to on watermoors because its cheap land, and everyone is suddenly surprised that half the country ends up underwater when we have a major storm. Which contributes to the sewage system collapsing.

Im not saying Socialism is the answer before you scoff. Im saying anyone whom approached it with vaguely joined up and pragmatic thinking would have solved these problems decades ago. Sadly this is the UK, and we will doubtless keep debating it as if its a political or social issue, till we all end up drowning in our own shit.