Saturday, April 28, 2012

Nigel Farage: "We're being run by a bunch of college kids"

77 Comments:

Blogger non mouse said...

college kids is right. Not the kind who had to pass special scholarship exams to get there, either. This lot did it by entitlement.

Furthermore, they think life is just one long Rag Week.

28 April 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Of course you should never trust someone who begins a question by quoting Old Yellowstain. But this is not just matter of 'pulling in the belt and living leaner.' Western nations have been systematically destroying all the non-governmental support mechanisms to which people traditionally appeal in hard times, and have replaced them with government programs. When the government programs go away, those support mechanisms aren't going to instantly recreate themselves.

This is especially true concerning marriage and divorce. The deliberately created uncertainty of no-fault divorce means that both parties have incentive to work. A woman who has no marketable skills in incredibly vulnerable to a husband who decides he wants to trade up. That means it will be difficult to "fairly" allocate austerity. People won't accept a 'living wage' concept to allocate employment if they can be tossed aside on a whim. I also can't see a reversal of the libertine attitudes that drive western social thought. That means you will still have high demand for employment. Since people tend to marry within their class, certain families will remain more competitive for jobs. So you will get many two-income families, and a lot of no-income families with no alternate means of support, and no family to help.

This is why I am so pessimistic about the future of representative government. It is a formula for radicalization, and the re-emergence of the Fuhrer principle. Weimar failed for a reason, and the Western world is looking more and more like Weimar to me.

carl

28 April 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Now there’s a man with leadership qualities.

To being home to the public how much our cosy benefits rich society costs, it would be a most excellent idea to express everything in terms of pence per litre of fuel. The net contribution to the EU for example. The cost on society the additional burden of unwanted immigrants, eg Romanian pick pocket gangs. The cost of housing our economic refugees from failed countries. Now that would engage the public, and opposition to the necessary cuts would soon fade. “Bring the people on board.” is the rally cry...

28 April 2012 at 15:18  
Blogger Owl said...

Well said Carl,

according to Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Fascism) the "Third Way" is nothing other than fascism, benign or otherwise, and invariably leads to the Fuhrer scenario.

I can well beleive that Blair and Cameron see themselves in this role as both have made giant strides to achieve this end.

It was nice to listen to Farage talking common sense. We hear this so seldom from a politician.

It would also seem that some people are beginning to realise that the enemy of the people is LibLabCon and not just one or two of the three. It is time we stopped changing the puppets and concentrate on the puppetmaster(s).

Then we might just get our country back again.

28 April 2012 at 15:31  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, Mr Carl Jacobs @ 14.43 raises a question that greatly concerns your communicant. Is universal sufferage a sustainable proposition? If not what are the alternatives, and how can we avoid them?

Now your communicant is a firm believer in universal suffrage as applied to representative democracy. Sadly the political class rather than the electorate is where the system fails, at present at least. So if the political class fails, there is an incentive for as yet dormant elements in the electorate to replace them. Europe therefore faces a potential repeat the German experience post-Weimar. Thanks to the EU and the Euro, this is a uniquely European risk.

Recently your communicant stumbled upon a yellowing tome in his modest library. Within is an essay that contains the following words,'One reflects: this is undoubtedly democracy. But it is one which postulates not the rational human being judging questions for himself, but the emotional creature subordinating his judgement to the mass instinct. Both are true, but this system puts humanity on a much lower plane'.

These most prescient remarks were written by the British journalist Robert Byron in September 1938 while he was the guest of Unity Mitford at the Nuremburg Rally. Byron was a political correspondent of the Times and an agent for MI6 who took a strong anti-appeasement line. The full text of Byron's report on the Nuremburg rally is fascinating in that he attempts to analyse the metaphysics of National Socialism, meets most of the principal actors and judges them.

Whatever the case, Byron's comments about Nazi Germany would seem valid today as a warning to those who are tempted by the prospect of a post-democratic society.

Apologies for the Godwin's Law infringement, Your Grace, but sometimes there is no alternative.

28 April 2012 at 15:45  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Nigel gets it. No wonder the establishment wants to pretend UKIP doesn't exist.

Heh

28 April 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger Hereward said...

There are too many people being paid to do jobs that contribute nothing to economic growth. Too many Quangos whose purpose is furtherance of ideology and enforcement of political correctness. This is no way to create prosperity. “1984” was meant to serve as a warning not to be misused as an instruction manual. Did we support demolition of the Berlin Wall to migrate the East German mindset into western Europe? Did we learn nothing about the futility of Socialism from the collapse of the USSR?

Statist Centralised Government is too big, too intrusive and too wasteful. It will ultimately precipitate its own destruction. The UK has become bad enough but a far worse example exists in Euroland where we have the spectacle of politics trying to wrestle economics into a monetary straitjacket while rising unemployment stokes social unrest. The EU is looking like a roadmap to catastrophe. We follow it at our peril. £50m a day goes straight down the Brussels sewer. It could be far better spent at home.

28 April 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Blue Dog/Carl Jacobs,

I recall a quote from a famous human :

" democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

28 April 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
As we remarked on the Whiney-Tatton Post, and as Pip's brother-in-law Joe said, “What larks we will have”.
Forage comes over as a great speaker and a potentially good leader but I have seen a number of ‘You tube’ clips of him in Brussels and most of his speeches have been attacks on the EU. Great, but what about input? I didn't see any.
OK, let’s have UKIP in Government but what then? They oppose gay proposals now, but then so did the Conservatives before they were elected.

What of their policies for the future? What is the driving force behind their domestic policies? True Conservatism has nothing to do with the shower in power now and we know nothing about how the policy of UKIP will be determined in the future.

The church I belong to use to be accused that speak to one or speak to all and the answer was always the same, we were of one mind. Can that be said of any political party to day.

28 April 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
As we remarked on the Whiney-Tatton Post, and as Pip's brother-in-law Joe said, “What larks we will have”.
Forage comes over as a great speaker and a potentially good leader but I have seen a number of ‘You tube’ clips of him in Brussels and most of his speeches have been attacks on the EU. Great, but what about input? I didn't see any.
OK, let’s have UKIP in Government but what then? They oppose gay proposals now, but then so did the Conservatives before they were elected.

What of their policies for the future? What is the driving force behind their domestic policies? True Conservatism has nothing to do with the shower in power now and we know nothing about how the policy of UKIP will be determined in the future.

The church I belong to use to be accused that speak to one or speak to all and the answer was always the same, we were of one mind. Can that be said of any political party to day.

28 April 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Integrity old chap. There can come a time when a leap of faith must be considered. Women who marry have been doing it for thousands of years. Trusting their intuition and maybe friends advice has lead them to the right man. Granted, it’s not familiar territory to us manly types, but here we go, jump in with both feet. There are people already in the pool and they’re splashing about in fun. Can’t be all bad in there then ?

The Inspector can’t seriously considering voting Conservative with gay marriage on the manifesto. Cameron would consider it a vote of approval. A Christian can’t have that, what !

28 April 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

It strikes me that Westminster would benefit from similar rules that govern membership of PCCs (that's Parochial Church Councils to the uninitiated). Specifically the rules for Church Warden come to mind, as a warden may not stand for more than 6 consecutive years (unless the PCC votes in favour of suggesting it be dropped as a rule and the AGM then votes in favour of this). Set a maximum number of consecutive terms for MPs and you destroy the political class' current stanglehold on the way things are and open up the system to many more people.

Of course, you could simply end up with a larger political class, with those not elected being picked as Lords or SpAds, but it could also lead politicians and those wanting to go that way to see that having a means of income outside of politics is beneficial for the time when you are forced out by the system.

Now we just have to find a way to get turkeys to vote for Christmas!

28 April 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Alpha Draconis

democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried

Democracy is a good form of government if you possess a virtuous citizenry. It is an abysmally bad form of government otherwise. The central problem for a democracy is 'How do we inculcate virtue in our citizens?' The post-modern Western world has answered that question by saying "Virtue is liberty. Let people do what they want." Yes, we see how well that has worked. We avoided the problem of objective definition but in the process lost the ability to separate liberty from license. With predictable results.

Man is by nature a pagan who seeks after a king. He isn't fit by nature for self-rule. He must be made fit for self-rule. The problem with the West is that it has bought into the false idea that men are by nature capable of ruling themselves - that it's all a matter of organizing the externals. There is no form of democratic government so perfect that men no longer have to be good. That however is the quest of the current Western nations. It is a fool's quest, and will inevitably lead to a re-imposition of exactly what they seek to avoid.

carl

28 April 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger Phil said...

Well said (again) Carl

I do feel that there is a new wind in the air, where it will lead us!!

28 April 2012 at 22:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Magnificent insight, if you don’t mind praise from the Inspector. Ties in neatly with the Inspector’s opinion that democracy is not meant for all the races, only the [AHEM] ‘more successful’ and ‘leading’ types of God’s creation. Other forms of government should not be subject to our automatic disapproval..

28 April 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

democracy is not meant for all the races, only the [AHEM] ‘more successful’ and ‘leading’ types of God’s creation.

I shouldn't worry about it too much. Perhaps the Africans will send missionaries to Europe and rebuild civilization among the ruins.

carl

28 April 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. You lack leadership qualities. But don’t worry about that - that’s where the Inspector comes in. However, your advice is top drawer. He’d like to have you at his side, you being the Waylon Smithers of Cranmer. Well done that colonial, keep up the good work...

28 April 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

...

Waylon Smithers? Who is Waylon Smithers? Some obscure character from British history? And what has he to do with Cranmer?

[Google Google Google]

...

Oh. The Simpsons. No wonder I didn't know who you were talking about. I remember watching the The Simpsons during its first season. Otherwise it has disappeared from my consciousness. Personally, I think Spock would be a better fit for me. Detached. Rational. Unemotional. The embodiment of logic. It's why we Engineers should rule the world.

carl

When we take over, you are all going to have to learn Calculus

28 April 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl

What a bleak and dark view you have of mankind - made in the imnage of God! Damaged by original sin, certainly, but surely not as totally depraved as your theology pictures him.

Luther and other protestants laid the foundation for a separation of religion and morality that you now bemoan. By stating that fiduciary faith alone obtains both justification they minimised man's moral faculties to such an extent that charity and good works are no longer seen to affect our relationship with God. This doctrine opened a fundamental breach between religion and morality, between faith and law, and assigned to each its own distinct sphere of action in which each can attain its end independent of the other. This was surely the foundation of many of the West's moral ills and paved the way for readical secularism.

What logically follows is the views you express:

"Democracy is a good form of government if you possess a virtuous citizenry."

And, given man's utter depravity can he ever be virtuous - unless predestined by God?

"Man is by nature a pagan who seeks after a king. He isn't fit by nature for self-rule. He must be made fit for self-rule."

And how can he be made fit if he is by nature depraved and enroute for Hell - unless among the predestined elect?

Catholics, on the other hand, are more optimistic and believe man, God's creation, whilst wounded by original sin and weakened, retains a freedom of the human will that is not entirely destroyed or extinguished.

You do realise the logical conclusion of your line of argument - a Puritan State run to suppress and constrain depraved, unelected man. A very different one to the 'Two Swords' theology of Catholicism which you misunderstand or misrepresent.

29 April 2012 at 00:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

After the Founding Fathers completed the task of either ...

1. Throwing off the tyranny of the British Monarchy

2 Rebelling against lawful authority

... they pondered the form of Gov't the United States should adopt. These were learned men well-versed in the classics. They well understood the dangers and weaknesses of democracy because they had studied its history. Many of the adaptations of the US Constitution were designed to overcome these flaws.

But one thing they knew they could not design into the system was virtue. A limited Gov't by definition gives up the ability to broadly compel the behavior of its citizens. And yet the behavior of the citizen must still be compelled. The citizen must act in a certain way or the whole exercise will collapse around him. How do you induce him to behave virtuously without Gov't coercion? That is the central question.

The Founding Fathers settled on religion. They did not want an established state religion, but none of them would have drawn a moral equivalence between atheism and theism. A free Republic must be a religious Republic because religion would instill in men the moral habits that made limited Gov't possible. The problem in the West today is the collapse of the restraining influence of religion combined with the liberty presented by limited Gov't. It leads directly to moral license, and the systematic destruction of those very habits that make limited Gov't possible.

Put simply, men have decided that the economic and national success of limited gov't is found in freedom itself. They seek to maximize freedom at the expense of virtue on the theory that freedom can make virtue obsolete. They do not understand that you can only maintain freedom over time if you use your freedom to do good. They want a system organized around them according to this specification: "Organize society in such a way that I may be both prosperous and free to behave as I choose." No such organization exists.

The loss of the restraining influence of religion has obliterated the concept of good, and so we are proceeding down the path of a self-indulgent society of individuals who each serve and gratify the self in the name of freedom. There being no objective truth, each man is free to set his own. The resulting chaos undermines the preconditions for liberty and drives the Gov't to reassert control. That is the future unless something is done to stop it.

carl

29 April 2012 at 02:38  
Blogger Hugues said...

That is an excellent comment Carl. Is there a way to Permalink to it, I'd love more people to see it.

29 April 2012 at 09:00  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Carl, as others have said that is excellently put!

Dodo, you need to remember the fact that whilst we are made in the image of God we screwed it all up at the fall and continue to do so. I can (hypothetically) make a Ferrari but if the guy I give it to decides to take the engine out and replace it with one made in the Midlands in the 1970's it's clearly not going to behave as I intended it to.

29 April 2012 at 09:35  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl
I agree society cannot function in a healthy way without some shared cultural force binding it together. Fascism and Communism understands this.

I also believe it is only the Christian faith that can truely achieve health and happiness.

However, the 'religion' of the Founding Fathers wasn't necessarily Christian; it was belief in a God and it was also based on the protestant separation between morality and law. I am unaware of them specify any "objective truth". I mean protestantism is disinclined to this with "faith alone" and "scripture alone" making each man his own pope!

I think this more a Catholic position than a Calvinist one:

"They do not understand that you can only maintain freedom over time if you use your freedom to do good."

The issue then is what we mean by "good" and whether a society can be organised around the liberal conception of the individual. And just who organises society to "do good"?

29 April 2012 at 10:39  
Blogger len said...

Catholicism and freedom are two words which do not sit together at all!.

Catholicism binds people to itself as much as communism or indeed fascism does.

Christ came to set the captives free not to bind them within religious /political systems!.

29 April 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

You are confusing two questions. I am not talking about how a man becomes right with God. I am certainly not saying that Christianity is a necessary precondition for the existence of limited gov't - although in fact limited gov't in the West did originate because of its Christian heritage. I am saying that a limited republic requires a virtuous population (however constructed) where virtue must be understood in a temporal and not an eternal context. I am saying the West is in danger of losing limit gov't because it has lost the understanding of how to produce that virtuous population.

Don't confuse this concept of virtue with sanctification. It's not an explicitly Christian process. That's why I deliberately used words like 'religion' and 'moral habit.' Certainly (say) the Jewish religion will produce the same outcome. What is necessary is that the citizen be inculcated with certain habits. These necessary moral habits of responsibility, diligence, thrift, honesty, and self-denial represent a low standard. Human nature however makes even the attainment of even this low standard extraordinarily difficult.

The West constructed a system that depended upon religion to restrain the passion of the citizen. Over time, the influence of religion has waned. In the wake of this cultural shift, the old restraints that made limited gov't possible have given way. Something must therefore replace religion for the system to keep working. Unfortunately the new culture has lifted up freedom as the new touchstone of behavior - in effect, deifying man himself. We have made freedom the chief virtue of man, and men have responded by declaring their right to live as they please. Freedom doesn't constrain. It doesn't instill moral habits. Freedom must be bounded by something or moral chaos results. That is the problem. We have declared God dead, and discovered that all the observable boundaries went to the grave with Him. People said "Hooray! I'm free!" But now the bill is coming due.

carl

29 April 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl said ...

"I am saying that a limited republic requires a virtuous population (however constructed) where virtue must be understood in a temporal and not an eternal context."

I do understand what you're saying. I think what I'm trying to say is that God made us to live in a certain way - putting knowledge, love and service of Him first and following His ordinances for us as expressed in His Commandments and revelation.

My central point is that there is no seperation between the temporal and spiritual. Both need to be harmonised snd go hand in hand. It is the protestant system that artificially divides religion and morality creating a breach between faith and law. One cannot simply impose a religious system on top of liberal individualism and expect the cry for rights before the law, distinct from Christian values, to work.

That's really what the principles of the French Revolution and the American Revolution has left us with.

29 April 2012 at 16:52  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len said
"Catholicism and freedom are two words which do not sit together at all!

Would you care to substantiate this? And remember this is 2012; no nonsense from a millenia ago. In what ways exactly does Catholicism curtail freedom?

"Catholicism binds people to itself as much as communism or indeed fascism does."

More so, one hopes and prays! What you're actually saying is that the mystical Body of Christ, consisting of members of His Church, are held together by Him and through His appointed representatives on earth.

29 April 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger Preacher said...

It's true that all the big three, (Well Two & a half) have written verbal cheques to the electorate when in opposition that they will cannot or will not cash when they are given the opportunity to represent us. it's simply froth & lies to gain an advantage.
UKIP may prove to be cut from the same cloth, but Mr Farage does look & sound like the 'Real deal'. Give me a blunt no nonsense, plain speaking man any day. Rather than the posh College Boys of any party hue that think we're all uneducated morons, who don't know facts from fog.
It's high time we scrapped our party political affiliations that we've carried for decades, voting by rote not thought & gave a fresh new team a chance.
To my mind it's necessary in life to review the old guard from time to time, chuck out the deadwood & the parasites & return to the safe point prior to the start of the rot setting in.

30 April 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger len said...

Dodo 'More so, one hopes and prays! What you're actually saying is that the mystical Body of Christ, consisting of members of His Church, are held together by Him and through His appointed representatives on earth.'

I agree with that part of your statement .But the Catholic Church cannot be the' Body Of Christ' otherwise it would do as He said.

"Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord' and don't do what I say?(Luke 6;46
(There is a vast difference being 'bound' to a heretical religious system and being 'Joined' one spirit with Christ)

30 April 2012 at 19:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

I agree. It all depends on which system is heretical. Your individualistic, make it up as you go along system or the Church established by Christ. You base your system on 'faith alone' and 'scripture alone', neither of which can be found in the bible. Catholicism rests on the commission and promise of Christ. Not much room for choice really!

30 April 2012 at 23:24  
Blogger Pétrus said...

Hmm....those who try and live their life sola scriptura fall down on one big fact.

The Bible didn't exist until the Council of Carthage in 397AD. We had nearly 400 years of the Catholic Church before the Bible. That is 400 years of devout Catholics following the word of God without the Bible.

30 April 2012 at 23:33  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Pertussis, you seem to lack any understanding of what the Bible is. The Church had the Old Testament (or The Scriptures, as they would have been referred before the Bibke canon was agreed) which had been around since before the birth of Christ. Indeed, the oldest parts of it (The Torah) predate Christ by over 1000 years. You then also have the various parts of the New Testament that were kept for the learning and aiding of teaching to the Church (the oldest surviving documents date back to less than 100 years after Jesus' death).

You also need to read up on the history of the church, because the Catholic Church did not exist at that time. There was The Church, with certain centres of learning and influence, of which Rome as but 1 of many.

1 May 2012 at 01:32  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

youthpasta
What Pétrus is saying is that prior to the Councils there was no New Testamment "scripture" sanctioned by the Church as the Word of God.

And the Catholic Church has existed since the time Christ commissioned the Apostles and appointed Peter as their leader.

1 May 2012 at 02:01  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

You're swallowing the party line, Dodo. The Catholic church claims descent from the Early church because of a claim of pastoral descent from Peter. However, given that Peter was not interested as much in the Gentiles as the Jews (though Paul did challenge him on this and he did seem to change on the matter) and that Paul was both a missioner to the Gentiles and known to have ministered to and pastored the church in Rome the best that the Catholics can claim is descent through Paul. But this would mess up that wonderful thought that Jesus' blessing on Peter's ministry has been passed down directly from Pope to Pope.

If any church can lay claim to being the unbroken Church of descent it would be the Church in the East. But if you don't like that historical fact, feel free to make it up in your own way. After all, it's not like that's new to the papal way of doing things!

1 May 2012 at 09:41  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Oh, and regarding Scripture being "sanctioned" as the Word of God, given that this comes from line by Paul to Timothy and refers to what we call the Old Testament I'd say that the Word of God has been around for several thousand years and was accepted as such centuries before the council declared it!

1 May 2012 at 09:44  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Youthpasta

The Church in the East was at one time one with the Western Church. I accept Catholic history on the early Church; you don't. It's that old Catholic-Protestant thing. We could endlessly cite text and counter text and get nowhere. Matthew 16 is pretty clear though and Apostolic leadership and the role of St Peter.

You'll be aware there is some difference of opinion about what books actually constitute the Old Testament.

Is the New Testament Holy Scripture? When was this decidied and by whom?

1 May 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo.
So let's get this straight. What you are saying is that the New Testament is NOT Holy Scripture!. If this is the case, then what are the Pope & his priests reading from when they quote from the Bible? It can't be the Old Testament, because apart from the prophecies about Messiah, Christ, Mary & the rest of the Apostles are not mentioned in it.
Please understand, I am not trying to get involved in the Protestant V Catholic debate, I'm more of a non-conformist, but you can't really quote from something (Matthew 16) that you feel is unreliable.

Blessings. Preacher.

1 May 2012 at 16:24  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Preacher

What on earth! I said nor implied any such thing - I hope!. Read the interchange between my self and Youthpasta and it may become clearer.

My point was that the New Testament was defined as such by Church Councils (before any Catholic or Protestant divide; or an East-West divide) and the Old Testament was confirmed as such too. So when the Apostles referred to scripture they could not have been referring the New Testament - which had not been written, let alone accepted as canon.

1 May 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Carl Jacobs

I was of course quoting Winston Churchill - A human I can understand! - A true warrior of the Draconis!!

I personally think democracy is catering to the highest (or lowest) common denominator!

1 May 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Ps-

I have been away for a while due to the fact I have had to go to an "Alpha Course" (!) on the world of Kensington Brompton, 356 at the shrine of "St. Nicolas Grumble" (part of my training on "human culture, diversity and religion"for when I become the supreme fund manager of the Draconis Sovereign Wealth Fund).

*Sigh*

1 May 2012 at 21:51  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Also, your Grace,

On matters,

Why does Carl Jacobs reflect my mind, but his polar opposite, Dodo my heart?

1 May 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@ Dodo ,

I've stopped reading Darth Yo'th Pasta's posts, when he agreed with killing gays, with his assertion that Leviticus applies today!

1 May 2012 at 22:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Alpha

Why does Carl Jacobs reflect my mind, but his polar opposite, Dodo my heart?

It's the difference between the truth we desire and the Truth that is. We crave the former with the heart. We apprehend the later with the mind.

carl

1 May 2012 at 23:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

anna anglican

Some of us much prefer the Tough Principled Sith to the sniveling relativism of the Jedi.

Tough Principled Sith Lord: "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

Sniveling Relativistic Jedi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

C'mon now. Bringing Order to the Galaxy or Bringing Jar Jar Binks to the Imperial Senate. Which do you find more admirable?

carl

1 May 2012 at 23:31  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@ Alpha

Or is it more to do with the fact that Dodo has Irish charm and Carl Jacobs can argue you under the table? Heck, both these guys could sell blood to the Jehovah's Witnesses!

1 May 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@ Carl Jacobs

I have to admit I keep thinking Count Dooku should have won against Skywalker!

Although Yoda was quite cool!

1 May 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
How very kind, thank you!

Alpha
Ignore Mr Jacobs; I'm right and he's wrong! He is American with German ancestry - all cold logic. I am Jewish-Irish - soulful and reasoned.

Trust your heart. That's where God reaches and moves you. His Word needs to be understood with love and our reason should be guided by this.

Wishful thinking? I don't think so. "God is Love." Catholics understand this.

1 May 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Anna said ...
"I have to admit I keep thinking Count Dooku should have won against Skywalker!"

You wanted evil to beat good? This will be the protester within you. You should control this as it is a dangerous tendency.

2 May 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

From your sniveling relativistic Jedi POV, Anakin's confrontation with Count Dooku was part of Anakin's journey to the Dark Side. Anakin's obedience to Palpatine's order is contrasted with Luke's refusal to kill his father in similar circumstances. So technically, a victory by Count Dooku would have been a victory for Good. It would have destroyed the Chosen One and smashed the Emperor's plans. All this assumes of course that sniveling relativistic Jedis can even speak of absolute concepts like 'Good.'

See, this is what happens when you replace logic with "soulful reasoning." You impose wish fulfillment on the truth.

I will accept your surrender now.

carl

2 May 2012 at 00:53  
Blogger len said...

Anna Anglican,(1 May 2012 22:42)

It is the lifestyle of 'Gays' that is killing them .That is why God condemns lifestyles that harm individuals and Society in general.

Also if you indulge in rebellion against God and His Living Word you place yourself under the Jurisdiction of the enemy of God and mankind.

This is the conundrum of all those who wish to' have their own way' but also reap all the benefits of salvation.

2 May 2012 at 07:41  
Blogger Preacher said...

O.K Dodo. No problemo.
So we agree that the New Testament & the Old Testament Both existed BEFORE the various divisions of the Church.
But the UNDIVIDED Christian Churches had received, Revered & honoured the gospels & epistles as God breathed. The Church councils only met to separate the wheat of truth from the tares of false writings that were rife.
But surely the true Scriptures were not reliant on the judgement of men & the councils merely Confirmed the authority of God contained in them. It's always seemed a tragedy to me that the original church has been divided into various denominational divisions, with rites, customs & traditions that have been invented by men, with the result that many have rejected the Blood brought freedom that Christ gave, & once more wear the yolk & slavery & legalism of human religion & are More akin to football supporters who would rather fight each other than enjoy the game.
IMO the only way to regain the lost ground, is to revert to Scripture, discard ALL the dust traps of the divisive human teachings of decades & return to the teachings of Jesus. Only then will the bride be ready for the groom.
Radical I know, but Jesus is the most radical person I know or have ever known.

2 May 2012 at 09:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Preacher

But who had the authority to decide what was wheat and what was tares? The disputes about the nature of Christ and God's plan for our redemption were genuine and serious therological differences existed amongst men of good will.

I agree the Holy Spirit guided the authors of scripture and guided the men determining the choice of books to include as canon. However, He had toact through chosen men.

You also do need to bear in mind that the Church had been teaching the Good News of Christ for centuries prior to scripture being determined. Are we to just ignore this Tradition? The Christian message was originally spread by preaching and teaching - not by the written word.

2 May 2012 at 10:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl

Maybe it might have worked out the way you suppose, maybe not, but it's not our place to rewrite the Author's script or anticipate a different route to victory.

Besides, in your version Luke's father would not have been redeemed and Luke would not have married his Princess. Where's your sense of romance? Plus, you would have good people unnecessarily sacrificed to achieve your supposed ending.

No, I prefer the unadulterated version as presented by the Author and Director. We must stay true to them and I don't think we should tinker with their intentions.

And Anna was just being rebellious =- like all women!

2 May 2012 at 10:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Umm ... Luke, didn't marry His Princess. That whole brother/sister thing, remember? It's (sort of) implied that Han would marry Leia. In the real Script (the one before the marketing people got their dirty little fingers on it) Han Solo was supposed to die in Episode Six. Princess Leia would have spent her life in loneliness and sorrow mourning his death. That is true romance. So let's not go puffing about the cookie-cutter cardboard ending. Lucas did grievous damage to it.

But in any case, I was talking about the actual script. The Emperor told Anakin to kill Dooku and Anakin complied. The Emperor was doing to Luke what the Emperor had previously done to Anakin. "Kill your father and take his place by my side." That's when Luke says "I'll never turn. I am a Jedi like my father before me." The two events are paralleled. Anakin's choice and Luke's choice stand in stark contrast. Anakin made the wrong choice and Luke made the right choice. And (always remembering that I am representing the case from your sniveling relativistic Jedi POV) Count Dooku was not a "Good guy." He was a Sith, and the Emperor's servant. That's why Anakin had to kill him to take his place.

All too easy.

carl

2 May 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger William said...

Dodo said

"No, I prefer the unadulterated version as presented by the Author and Director. We must stay true to them and I don't think we should tinker with their intentions."

Perhaps you should read the script to get a decent understanding of the original intentions? Then you would be less prone to adding extras such as imagined marriages.

By the way, you seem to be more dogo than dodo these days.

2 May 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

William
Oooopps! I'm not a hugh Star Wars fan.

carl
What has all this to do with Anna saying: "I have to admit I keep thinking Count Dooku should have won against Skywalker!", my objection to this and you saying: "So technically, a victory by Count Dooku would have been a victory for Good."?

How would Count Dooku winning against Luke Skywalker been a victory for Good?

2 May 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Count Dooku is the Emperor's second apprentice. He is killed in Episode III by Anakin Skywalker. When Anna said ...

I have to admit I keep thinking Count Dooku should have won against Skywalker!"

... she was referring to Anakin Skywalker. If Dooku wins, Vader never exists and the Jedis are never betrayed, and there is no Evil Empire.

carl

2 May 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl

Perhaps I should watch the movies again? Thank you for explaining this.

Weren't both Anakin and Dooku Jedi traitors? I suspect that Dooku would have persisted in evil, whereas Anakin recovered his senses.

(The Jedi remind one of the Jesuits, don't you think?)

2 May 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@DOdo
"The Jedi remind one of the Jesuits"

I wonder if that was George Lucas's intent- part of Anakin's path to the dark side is his secret marriage (which he is no supposed to do as a celibate Jedi- whether male or female).

Basically Anakin Skywalker is Luke's Father. Anakin Skywalker is the Jedi Knight (who becomes a Jedi against the better judgment of Yoda and Mace Windu, but whom the Jedi Liam Neeson plays believes is the 'chosen one' and after he dies, his apprentice Obi Wan Kenobi agrees to train Skywalker- Obi Wan is played by Ewan McCgregor and Sir Alec Guinness) , but Anakin eventually becomes Darth Vader...and that starts with him killing Count Dooku. Also whilst the Jedi are suppose to be celibate Anakin is secretly married to Senator Padmé Amidala (played by Jewish actress Natalie Portman!). The fear of Anakin's wife (Nat Portman) being killed in childbirth (after having 'visions') is one of the ways in which the evil emperor manipulates Anakin into evil or the dark side. 30 years later, when Anakin is Darth Vader he fights his own son, Luke; as Carl says the emperor tells Luke to kill his father; Luke refuses and as the emperor kills Luke with force lightening, Vader looks on and then redeems himself by throwing the emperor down the shaft of the second death star, but whilst he is redeemed this action also kills him; why Luke says he wants to save his father Vader/Anikan says "you already have".

3 May 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Alpha

Dodo often reminds me of my uncle (who also posts on this blog- as mad as a right wing reactionary can be) and Carl reminds me of my father.

Strange, how one can see similarites in situations- although if my uncle slaps my bum again!

3 May 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger anna anglican said...

PS- Uncle, I'm only joking!

3 May 2012 at 22:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Amnna

Thank you for that helpful summary. I've never really watched Star Wars, although my children we're always playing the VHS tapes that were copied from the video store.

Now, The Lord of the Rings I know from cover to cover and my children were read it each night. When my son pointed out that at 15 he was too old for me to be reading him a bedtime story I was very disappointed. My daughter was 16 at the time and she rebelled too!

Celibacy should, of course, always be the chosen path of any man who dedicates himself to a higher cause. Being emcumbered by the responsibilities of being a husband and a father, and also exhausting oneself in the throws of physical passion, is bound to be a distraction.

Now I'm wondering who your uncle could possibly be. Obviously, from your description, he is a sensible and orthodox Christian who opposes the heresies that have crept into the Church. I should think he is also an intelligent man. This narrows the field down considerably. Just so long as he isn't either of the terrible duo 'Sith' on here, neither of whom are intelligent or orthodox.

You should show more respect for your elders!

3 May 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Who could Anna's Uncle be?

Candidates are :

1. Dodo
2. Len
3. Inspector
4. Albert
5.Danjo (a wild card)
6. Ernsty
7.Carl Jacobs
8.The Jewish guy from Canada who used to post on this blog?
9. English Viking (who used to post on this blog?)
10. Rebel Saint (ok I have run out of ideas now!).

3 May 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger William said...

Or maybe Anna's uncle is an alien from the future? Just a thought.

3 May 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha

Some possible candidates:
The Preacher
Alpha Draconis
William

Not:
Ernsty
little pope len

Unlikely
Albert
Inspector
Dodo
English Viking
Avi Barzel
DanJ0
Carl Jacobs

3 May 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo and William

No, this is not me nor one of my brothers- they are too well aware of the legal case "Alpha Draconis, Tracy Day, Miles Patrick Insurance Brokers & Others Vs the Time Lords,appellate court".

One of the most famous inter-time legal cases ever known!

3 May 2012 at 23:54  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

PS-

My time spies have alerted me to that fact that Anna Anglican has a cetain holy artifact that belongs to the Imperial Dracnois court- surrender earth men or face the wrath of our space battle fleet!!

3 May 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha

Up yours, old son!

4 May 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

Whatever has happened to English Viking? I enjoyed his banter and miss him.

I do hope he is well and is fighting his demons successfully. I will say a prayer for him tonight.

4 May 2012 at 00:11  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo,

Why English Viking was vanquished at my very hand! A true warrior who fought with valour and honour- but one who could not stop the supremacy of the Draconis! For centuries we have waited and planned and sowed divsions amongst the humans! And now victory is upon us! We shall secure the Koh-i-Noor and open a rift to the gamma quadrant and then shall the Dominion and our Jem'hadar Allies sweep through the galaxy and with us conqueor all! I look forward to becoming supreme governor of occupied Earth!!!

4 May 2012 at 00:24  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo,

No it shall be up yours! And as our first target we shall crush Carl Jacob's home planet of Vulcan!

4 May 2012 at 00:28  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha

You are full of it my reptilian warrior friend.

By the way, I'm now thinking Anna Anglican's uncle could be Lord Lavendon or one Paul Twigg. I'd go with the former - more intelligent.

4 May 2012 at 00:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Alpha

Question: How many Vulcans does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: One.

Anyways, I much prefer the Romulans. I could have been an Officer in the Tal Shiar.

carl
"Bugs, Mr Rico! Zillions of 'em."

4 May 2012 at 03:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Anna Anglican

Dodo often reminds me of my uncle ...and Carl reminds me of my father.

...

That would mean I am related to Dodo! This cannot be.

Anyways, eat your vegetables, and into bed by 2130. With the lights out. And no flashlight. And the computer off.

carl

4 May 2012 at 04:29  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Nationally the figures wer 39% Labour, 31% Tory, 14% UKIP, 11% Liberals, 5% Odds and Ends.

This is a huge increase for UKIP which should be frightening the Conservative establishment. For every 2 people who voted Conservative, 1 person voted UKIP. The Conservatives can't afford that type of haemorrhaging if they want to win the next election.

Cameron has got to do something different and that has to be something completely different from what he is doing now, because homosexual "marriage" is not giving him the results he wants and needs to retain or win back the confidence of his Party.

7 May 2012 at 08:11  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Nationally the figures wer 39% Labour, 31% Tory, 14% UKIP, 11% Liberals, 5% Odds and Ends.

This is a huge increase for UKIP which should be frightening the Conservative establishment. For every 2 people who voted Conservative, 1 person voted UKIP. The Conservatives can't afford that type of haemorrhaging if they want to win the next election.

Cameron has got to do something different and that has to be something completely different from what he is doing now, because homosexual "marriage" is not giving him the results he wants and needs to retain or win back the confidence of his Party.

7 May 2012 at 08:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older