Author Topic: Tory MPs defending Johnson and Hancock  (Read 223 times)

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
Tory MPs defending Johnson and Hancock
« on: 27 May 2021 11:55AM »
Put simply they would defend Hitler.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5003
Re: Tory MPs defending Johnson and Hancock
« Reply #1 on: 03 Jun 2021 11:58PM »
I agree. 

I'm going to say some yucky stuff but then what I cling onto as hope.

in my opinion, Hitlers rarely start out as full-blown hitlers, they build up and tip over into it.  I think that had Thatcher not had certain of her ministers holding her back, she might have gone from being what she was like to being what her friend Pinochet was like.

And even people remembered through history for leading struggles for peace and fairness have ended up doing very nasty things.  You have to be a strong person with a strong team behind you to achieve change, and as the time-worn saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our culture favours goody versus baddy narratives.  So we can make a thing of Nazis murdering 6 million Jews but find every excuse under the sun for turning away offers of humanitarian food aid from our allies that could have prevented most of the 3 million Bengalis, subjects of our King's empire, from starving to death.  "Oh, but they've had famines before" people say.  The history of Bengal famines under royal-chartered Honourable East India company, then British 'presidency' (province) it is rather similar to the Irish hunger.

We want to think of Nazis as foreign, nothing like us.  Hmm, would that be why the Nazis got most of their eugenics ideas from the British?  Still, at least under the Nuernberg Laws, you'd escape being murdered if three out of your four grandparents were Nazi-defined Aryan, after Hitler rejected adopting the American 'one drop' concept.  Not that that one drop of 'colour' would get you murdered, of course.  Well, unless you were lynched or happened to be somewhere like Tulsa on the wrong day.

I actually think that to get into power in a human world, you generally need to be very strong and rather hard-nosed, which pushes you close the edge of nastiness even if you didn't start out that way.

But...

Many's the country, society etc. that's pulled back from the edge.  Not perfectly, not without there still being suffering, but nevertheless not tipped over into total nastiness.

And if we can't stop things getting pretty nasty, we can do what we can to help one another, which happens a lot already.  E.g. foodbanks.  They shouldn't be needed, but they're there.
« Last Edit: 04 Jun 2021 12:06AM by Sunny Clouds »
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
Re: Tory MPs defending Johnson and Hancock
« Reply #2 on: 06 Jun 2021 09:30AM »
"I'm an obsessive problem-solver"  You are indeed Sunny, you solved in your posting my dilemma as to how to expand what I meant by my very brief opening remark.

I was reacting to some of those brown nosing Tories who were so obviously so far up Johnson's backside they had blinded themselves to the damage that utter idiot was doing. I feel these people, like those in the upper reaches of the Nazi party in 1930's Germany, have but one driving ambition get position/power and once gained do anything and everything not to lose it even if it means harming others in doing so.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5003
Re: Tory MPs defending Johnson and Hancock
« Reply #3 on: 06 Jun 2021 05:30PM »
I find some senior Tories very scary.

In relation to my views on change, I think that my sense that people can change, which may mean backing off from views once held or intensifying them, means that I don't just look at how nasty any are now, but consider how nasty they might be.

As for harming others, I'm minded of the infamous experiment in which participants were supposedly 'teaching' someone in another room with an audio link, that other person being an actor, and being encouraged to give the person electric shocks if they didn't do as required.  The actor expressed more and more pain and distress.  But it was, from the participants' perspective, ok, because it was part of a proper, authorised experiment.

Then I switch my mind to that research after WW2, where people involved in the holocaust were interviewed.  A German soldier who shot Jewish children when their families were being moved to concentration camps justified it on the basis that if he hadn't shot them, what they'd have suffered would have been far worse.

And rich people justify what they do.  Look at all their wonderful philanthropy.   Whilst people argue over the likes of Colston and the slavery aspect, let's consider an aspect that is, I believe, classic of so many rich philanthropists now - paying ordinary workers poor wages to work in poor conditions, then feeling good about providing the facilities the philanthropist thinks they should have.

And politicians?  Yes, be a patron of a good cause or two.  But don't spend much money on it unless you get a kick out of doing so, otherwise, what's the point in being a politician? 

I conceptualise most of the powerful people in our world as being compulsive hoarders of wealth and/or power (and of course, the two enmesh).

When we envisage compulsive hoarders, it's in the context usually of a documentary of a small house or maybe a flat full of rubbish, including a kitchen that probably makes a lot of viewers recoil.  Well, it's a rare maker of a documentary about compulsive hoarding that shows a tidy house.

But consider this - there's many a person, particularly but not only middle class, with a house large enough to accommodate wall upon wall covered in bookcases full of books they're never going to read again.  But maybe there are lots of complete sets of whatever.  And the kitchen?  Well it doesn't look cluttered because it's large with loads of cupboards and maybe a walk-in utility room and/or pantry.  You can spread the same amount of clutter round a room and it looks ok or not depending on the size of the room and the furniture.  100 pieces of unwashed crockery laid out neatly out on a dining table, a kitchen table and a food preparation counter look like nothing.  In a small place, a quarter or less of that can make you look like you're surrounded by clutter.  Yet the supposedly neatly laid out stuff might have been there for ages, or not need to be there etc.

You can hoard power that way. Who sees it as hoarding if you do it tidily?
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

bulekingfisher

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
Re: Tory MPs defending Johnson and Hancock
« Reply #4 on: Today at 07:06 PM »
Hello JH2

If the Torie's are fighting among est them self it will not be long before Labour are fighting amongst as they seem to copy each other  them self's (~lack of creative thought) so I might vote GREEN we have to break out of tit for tat