Government Control Debate

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,902
Reaction score
4,786
It's probably worth trying to search yourself, I don't mean that negatively. It's just I don't want to post videos up and drown you in things that most people don't have time to watch.

I will post one guy up there, this guy has been consistent all the way through this. Even when I was fully behind the lock downs in those early days, he was calmly saying that it was a massive overreaction. All of his predictions have been borne out by what happened.


Good luck reading the comments :)
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
105
Reaction score
138
Where are these people?

The leading signatories of The Great Barrington Declaration (which was steamrollered in the propaganda war) is a good place to start. Figures like Suneptra Guptra of Oxford University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunetra_Gupta.

https://gbdeclaration.org/

At the end of the day, Darwin is going to win. It's going to be the people who believe the narrative, or people that don't believe the narrative.

Unfortunately, not quite, I don't think. Survival doesn't always reward the truth. A Brave New World post-truth, social credit harmonised, bio-security state could easily outlast liberal democracy, particularly a secular one.

There's a logic to building a society completely around myths/lies/superstition. Regardless of truth, the rituals and liturgy of the thing keep a people held together.

A primitive/magical society, in which there's no distinction between culture and nature, like that of a tribe, is our strongest state. Rain dances don't bring the rain, but they do keep the members of the tribe locked into communal ritual, a social purpose, they allow for easy identification of dissenters, potential early spotting of diseases, a place to find a mate, for the leaders to display authority etc. etc...
 
Last edited:

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,521
Reaction score
18,079
The leading signatories of The Great Barrington Declaration (which was steamrollered in the propaganda war) is a good place to start. Figures like Suneptra Guptra of Oxford University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunetra_Gupta.

https://gbdeclaration.org/



Unfortunately, not quite, I don't think. Survival doesn't always reward the truth. A Brave New World post-truth, social credit harmonised, bio-security state could easily outlast liberal democracy, particularly a secular one.

There's a logic to building a society completely around myths/lies/superstition. Regardless of truth, the rituals and liturgy of the thing keep a people held together.

A primitive/magical society, in which there's no distinction between culture and nature, like that of a tribe, is our strongest state. Rain dances don't bring the rain, but they do keep the members of the tribe locked into communal ritual, a social purpose, they allow for easy identification of dissenters, potential early spotting of diseases, a place to find a mate, for the leaders to display authority etc. etc...
Do you believe the Armed Forces are complicit in this 'deception' to exert authority over the masses, and if so, do you still wish to join?
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,902
Reaction score
4,786
Unfortunately, not quite, I don't think. A Brave New World post-truth, social credit harmonised, bio-security state could easily outlast liberal democracy, particularly a secular one.

There's a logic to building a society completely around myths/lies/superstition. Regardless of truth, the rituals and liturgy of the thing keep a people held together.

A primitive/magical society, in which there's no distinction between culture and nature, like that of a tribe, is our strongest state. Rain dances don't bring the rain, but they do keep the members of the tribe locked into communal ritual, a social purpose, they allow for easy identification of dissenters, potential early spotting of diseases, a place to find a mate, for the leaders to display authority etc. etc...
But you are assuming one thing. All of these megalomaniacs, and I agree that there some out there, are all willing to work together. There is no history of these political types of people being able to work together for more than a few years without trying to take each other down. These Politician's are out there for personal gain, they won't work as a team, not with us and certainly not with each other.

There was a Social Credit score in the 80's. Members of Unions were blackballed from Construction projects for speaking out. There has been little black books in most organisations. Unfortunately it has always happened. It's nothing new.
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
105
Reaction score
138
Do you believe the Armed Forces are complicit in this 'deception' to exert authority over the masses, and if so, do you still wish to join?

It's not necessarily a 'deception'. Society is an organism and much of it desperately wanted, on some level, a disruption to their old lives and some kind of collective purpose.

We're all compromised if this was a mistake, institutions and individuals, and all classes. As much as the elite classes would lose their legitimacy should they admit to this, so would parents who would have effectively been abusing their children for nothing other than that the TV told had them too.

I don't believe the armed forces are particularly complicit, they haven't really been asked to do much so far. But there are massive legal questions at the minute surrounding the use of state powers at the minute, whether that's the police enforcing laws which aren't actually laws, 77 conducting ops on British citizens (without, I believe, any kind of proper parliamentary scrutiny of that). My initial point in this thread was regarding the use of the US Marines as what appears to be a blunt force object to push through a domestic agenda. Is that within the remit of an armed force? This stuff easily leads to fragmentations of power, it happens all over the world, just not very much in Britain, historically. (Or America). I mentioned the oath, what do you if an illegitimate executive is forcing the Crown to assent to hostile, illegitimate acts?

It's not as simple keeping schtum because you don't agree with, say, the Iraq War, or the intervention in Bosnia. It's the kind of stuff that leads to coups, or you being asked to choose between the Crown or the executive, or a particularly charismatic officer.

What if there's mass non-compliance and the armed forces are asked to put it down, potentially violently? Without proper parliamentary approval?

Yes, I desperately want to rejoin. I'm abroad now was set to come back last year to do so. However, I saw this as a potential kind of Sarajevo 1914 moment for Britain that could fully transform our way of life and the relationship the individual, the state and its institutions. So I've decided that I'm not going to join until this situation is resolved and the future direction of travel is a little clearer. But I'm still hanging about on this forum because rejoining is still what I want to do, there's some good discussions, a connection with home (which I can't visit) and think as a former Army trained rank infanteer, I can offer a little bit of advice and info on those choosing between services.
 
Last edited:

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,857
Reaction score
15,016
I mentioned the oath, what do you if an illegitimate executive is forcing the Crown to assent to hostile, illegitimate acts?
More accurately 'What do you do if you perceive the executive acts are illegitimate?'

I'm confident that constitutional bending has taken place within the past year. Personally, I'm quite happy with it.

Far too much emphasis on rights in society UK and not enough on individual responsibility.
 

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,521
Reaction score
18,079
It's not necessarily a 'deception'. Society is an organism and much of it desperately wanted, on some level, a disruption to their old lives and some kind of collective purpose.

We're all compromised if this was a mistake, institutions and individuals, and all classes. As much as the elite classes would lose their legitimacy should they admit to this, so would parents who would have effectively been abusing their children for nothing other than that the TV told had them too.

I don't believe the armed forces are particularly complicit, they haven't really been asked to do much so far. But there are massive legal questions at the minute surrounding the use of state powers at the minute, whether that's the police enforcing laws which aren't actually laws, 77 conducting ops on British citizens (without, I believe, any kind of proper parliamentary scrutiny of that). My initial point in this thread was regarding the use of the US Marines as what appears to be a blunt force object to push through a domestic agenda. Is that within the remit of an armed force? This stuff easily leads to fragmentations of power, it happens all over the world, just not very much in Britain, historically. (Or America). I mentioned the oath, what do you if an illegitimate executive is forcing the Crown to assent to hostile, illegitimate acts?

It's not as simple keeping schtum because you don't agree with, say, the Iraq War, or the intervention in Bosnia. It's the kind of stuff that leads to coups, or you being asked to choose between the Crown or the executive, or a particularly charismatic officer.

What if there's mass non-compliance and the armed forces are asked to put it down, potentially violently? Without proper parliamentary approval?

Yes, I desperately want to rejoin. I'm abroad now was set to come back last year to do so. However, I saw this as a potential kind of Sarajevo 1914 moment for Britain that could fully transform our way of life and the relationship the individual, the state and its institutions. So I've decided that I'm not going to join until this situation is resolved and the future direction of travel is a little clearer. But I'm still hanging about on this forum because rejoining is still what I want to do, there's some good discussions, a connection with home (which I can't visit) and think as a former Army trained rank infanteer, I can offer a little bit of advice and info on those choosing between services.
Did you choose to leave the Army, due in part, to UK foreign policy with regards Iraq or Bosnia?
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
105
Reaction score
138
More accurately 'What do you do if you perceive the executive acts are illegitimate?'

I'm confident that constitutional bending has taken place within the past year. Personally, I'm quite happy with it.

Far too much emphasis on rights in society UK and not enough on individual responsibility.

You were a bequeathed a free society earned in blood by the generations before you . It is your, and everyone's, responsibility to attempt to pass that on to the next generation in at least the condition it was given to you.

We can disagree on the rights and wrongs of this, but to say 'you're quite happy' with the legal, ethical, political and cultural traditions of Britain that have been forged and developed over the past 800 years through the actions and the sacrifices of your ancestors, being treated cynically, blasé, as if they don't matter, is, frankly, a betrayal, and abdication, of responsibility in my view. I'm a little shocked to see that expressed on a military forum.

I come at this from a standpoint of loyalty and responsibility to my country and society - it's nothing to do with some kind of narcissistic 'oh, my rights' attitude.

Did you choose to leave the Army, due in part, to UK foreign policy with regards Iraq or Bosnia?

No, of course not, that's really not the point I'm making. Essentially the opposite.

I don't advocate servicemen and women picking and choosing their service dependent on their views on UK Foreign Policy.

This crisis is, however, beginning to fracture the legitimacy of authority in the United Kingdom (i.e who is deciding what that policy is and whether they have the authority to do so), which is something we've barely ever had to consider even a possibility in the UK - but reasonably normal in most other parts of the world. Such a situation has consequences for everyone, including myself, who've sworn the oath because what you could be ordered to do could be contrary to your oath, and you could face personal consequences of that.

We're a bit away from that right now, but it's the direction of travel we're heading in, and we appear to be very complacent about it. Way too much, in my view.
 
Last edited:

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
105
Reaction score
138
More accurately 'What do you do if you perceive the executive acts are illegitimate?'

Yes, exactly, that's my whole point. If we keep playing fast and loose with the law and with due process, individual servicemen and women are going to have to think about that, or they could find themselves in the dock one day.

If we lose due process, parliamentary sovereignty, and the cultural conventions of trust and restraint, the only thing that can establish authority is violence. These things are incredibly fragile and take centuries to build, but can be destroyed in an instant. It's how civil wars start and why revolutions almost always eat their own.
 
Last edited:

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,902
Reaction score
4,786
Far too much emphasis on rights in society UK and not enough on individual responsibility.
I don't blame people for feeling like that. In my opinion, a lot of the damage done to the human rights arguments has been done by people crying wolf over the last 30 years. The public (myself included) now equate Human Right's to stupid issues, rather than the serious issues now face us.

Those lawyers cried wolf, made a lot of money and now the rest of us must pay for it with a loss of freedoms.
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
105
Reaction score
138
I don't blame people for feeling like that. In my opinion, a lot of the damage done to the human rights arguments has been done by people crying wolf over the last 30 years. The public (myself included) now equate Human Right's to stupid issues, rather than the serious issues not now face us.

Those lawyers cried wolf, made a lot of money and now the rest of us must pay for it with a loss of freedoms.

There's also an inherent weakness in 'human rights' because they're a secular attempt to ape divine rights, but they can never claim anywhere near as much authority. Maybe it was inevitable they became a licence for narcissism to masquerade as morality.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,857
Reaction score
15,016
You were a bequeathed a free society earned in blood by the generations before you . It is your, and everyone's, responsibility to attempt to pass that on to the next generation in at least the condition it was given to you.
I like to think I've done rather better than that in my own small way. Others may disagree.

We can disagree on the rights and wrongs of this, but to say 'you're quite happy' with the legal, ethical, political and cultural traditions of Britain that have been forged and developed over the past 800 years through the actions and the sacrifices of your ancestors, being treated cynically, blasé, as if they don't matter, is, frankly, a betrayal, and abdication, of responsibility in my view. I'm a little shocked to see that expressed on a military forum.
Once again you are stating your subjective perception as if it were fact.

These things are incredibly fragile and take centuries to build, but can be destroyed in an instant. It's how civil wars start and why revolutions almost always eat their own.
Nonsense. The fact that the fundamentals still exist are testimony to their robustness.
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
105
Reaction score
138
Once again you are stating your subjective perception as if it were fact.
'In my view' qualifies it as an opinion.

Nonsense. The fact that the fundamentals still exist are testimony to their robustness.
I don't mean to be flippant and intend no malice, but that definitely is subjective opinion expressed as fact.

I see it differently, I think such things are exceptions to the norm in human societies, and I think they're in huge danger - and I believe I'm vindicated by history here, but I'm not the oracle, I could be wrong (hope I am). But I believe there's merit in what I say.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,857
Reaction score
15,016
@1919 Your and my perceptions clearly differ. Which is fine.

May I ask if you ever had to compromise your opinions and values during your previous service? I certainly did on more than one occasion. Not asking for details but genuinely interested in how you reconciled that conflict.
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
105
Reaction score
138
@1919 Your and my perceptions clearly differ. Which is fine.

May I ask if you ever had to compromise your opinions and values during your previous service? I certainly did on more than one occasion. Not asking for details but genuinely interested in how you reconciled that conflict.

I can't say that I was ever really put in a difficult moral position. But I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament (which is where the Crown's power is invested, and thus what you swear oath to), I've no real theoretical objections to serving anywhere regardless of my personal opinions so long as it was constitutionally sound. In fact, I consider it a moral obligation to lay your personal opinions aside and submit if the bargain is held on the other side.

I didn't swear my oath to a minister, or personally to the Prime Minister, or to a political party, to the judiciary, to a particular faction of the armed forces, or even 'to the country'... etc. etc. But to the Crown (the monarch personally), which has its power invested in Parliament. If you start acting on orders given by those figures contrary and outside the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, you're breaking your oath, under my interpretation.

If the executive starts playing with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty because it thinks the ends justify the means, it sets precedent and opens the door for others to do so: either Generals, lawyers, other politicians, would-be revolutionaries etc. Once you start going down that road, it's hard to stop.

In a situation where authority fractures like that, it wouldn't be a case of just following your orders and everything is going to be OK. Extreme example, but it would be in the same sphere as France, 1940: you have to decide who holds legitimacy, the Vichy Government or government in exile. Make your choice, if you make the wrong one, you pay for it later.

These kinds of things were once basically unthinkable in Britain (I think this has led to a complacency with it - it's the reason why similar Anglophone societies have also taken a similar wrecking ball to their legal and political traditions - they, somewhat subconsciously, assume it's always going to be there)

This stuff isn't abstract any more, unfortunately. It's still more unlikely than not, but it's not unthinkable that the forces will be asked over the next few years to put down a rebellion by an executive to which there exists substantial evidence that they do not hold the authority to order such a thing. If you act on something like that, and Parliamentary sovereignty is later re-established, you could find yourself in trouble.
 
Last edited:

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,857
Reaction score
15,016
...I've no real theoretical objections to serving anywhere regardless of my personal opinions so long as it was constitutionally sound.
But who is the ultimate arbiter of what is or what is not constitutionally sound? And a definitive decision on that might take ten or more years to be established. Or more probably never satisfactorily resolved.
I'm trying to separate theory from practicality here.

Being devil's advocate here: can anyone concisely explain why the Nazis were hanged after the Nuremberg trials for "only obeying orders"?
 

Nature's Wish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Posts
122
Reaction score
54
Some talk of rights here so I'm just going to dump this excerpt. Let me know what you think.
 

Attachments

  • Duty and Rights.png
    Duty and Rights.png
    71.8 KB · Views: 18
Top