Peter Dow

[fred quimby]

He's thinking bazza. He's looking at the bigger picture and trying to make sense of it. That to me is valuable.

I'm fine with him getting benefits for this. No problem

[russycarps]

just my opinion, I dont claim to speak for society. That's bazza's role

[Peter Dow]

Of course he works, he just doesn't declare it.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Then award yourself condemned - for your own words.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Peter Dow

[sifi]

I wonder what this country would look like if we all sat around posting rubbish on the Internet all day.

Has Aberdeen got much unemployment these days? I don't think he'd be taking someone else's work, certainly not in the past.

[eFestivals]

Really? I thought you had been telling him he was wrong for most of the thread.

His ideas around how to do it and what it would achieve are nuts*, but his central idea of a republic with a president along with some sort of better version of democracy is an idea I fully support.

(* 'nuts' is a word I'd use to describe the ideas of many mainstream politicians btw [just so there's no confusion with that tangent])

But it's an idea with very little hope of ever happening thru mainstream methods, and even less hope of happening via the sort of violent over-throw he's put forwards.

And anyway, if it requires a violent over-throw it's unlikely to be happening with the support of 'the people', so would fail on the democracy part ... and quite likely lead to something worse than we have.

I'm a realist.

[eFestivals]

You making stuff up again ?

Where did I say that ?

I said "people like...", I didn't say you.

[eFestivals]

Did you mean this Neil ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d_It_Episode_1/

yeah, that's probably the programme.

I think it was in the second 'episode' tho.

[Peter Dow]

are there many people who are on your 'side'?

not hypothetical people, people you actually know

[Peter Dow]

Political violence, conflict/assassination as the best means to provide a positive transformation, a violent act on an opponent and to overthrow a political system.....

Edited December 3, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Y'know, there's some who very famously got quite bitter after failing to get into art school.

[Peter Dow]

yeah, that's why you're able to freely post what you want here and other places.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Peter Dow

[abdoujaparov]

It's a damned good job that not everyone takes your approach, because the likes of Mandela could have had the same "paranoid and delusional" thrown at him for his belief in an unfashionable idea.

[eFestivals]

there are one or two differences between Mandela and Mr Dow

one was imprisoned for the best part of 25 years for opposing a repressive state - a state that really was out to get him

the other is a failed postrgarduate student who conducted a public and defamatory campaign against a university and who now lives in a largely fantasy world in which the fascist representatives of Queen Betty are out to get him....

it's got nothing to do with belief in an idea....

both are oppression for opposing the state.

The only difference - if this actually counts as a difference (it's subjective) - is the worth of each idea.

[abdoujaparov]

both are oppression for opposing the state.

The only difference - if this actually counts as a difference (it's subjective) - is the worth of each idea.

[eFestivals]

No, the real objective difference is that one was imprisoned for opposing the state, the other is oppressed largely in his head. It's got nothing at all to do with the worth of either's ideas

they've both been imprisoned by the state for political campaigning of the type that the state deems illegal.

The worth that you or I might put on their campaigns is something aside from that fact, and is a purely subjective view.

Just because you might not see anything of worth to what Dow is doing doesn't alter that. In just the same way as you're regarding Dow's doings, I'm sure there were plenty of people back in the early 60s who thought that any idea of giving non-whites any political power was stupidity personified and so of no worth whatsoever.

It's context which gives history it's worth, so in a future British republic Dow might be held up as a hero* and not dismissed as a nutter. There's absolutely no way of you or I knowing how this might pan out.

(* I personally doubt it, but you never know. Stranger things have happened - like a bunch of terrorists being held up years later as shining lights of democracy. There's a huge number of examples of this, including with the USA.)

[eFestivals]

But Dow isn't persecuted because of his ideals... he's 'persecuted' because of his behaviour

Behaviour that's related to his ideals, no different to how it was for Mandela.

Mandela's ideal of equal rights for non-whites didn't require him to be leading a 'terrorist' campaign on behalf of his ideals, just as Dow's ideal of a republic doesn't require him to take the view that he does about "queens justice" and the like.

In both cases neither believed/s that the state had the moral right to implement 'justice' in the way that it did/does, with both instead believing themselves as having a moral right to rail against the way the state wishes to do things.

It's worth remembering that Dow's view on those sorts of things might well have been set by how he's been treated by the state, which you or I might find difficult to relate to because we've not suffered the same. If you like, it's the difference between the general acceptance of the UK's population of tougher anti-terrorist laws, and the change of that view that's likely to happen for many of those people who might wrongly suffer as a result of them.

In any future UK republic, it's extremely likely that the treatment of Dow by the state will be viewed differently to how you or I might see it now - because within the context of that republican state, 'right' will be on his side and not on the side of the laws as they exist and are implemented today.

[russycarps]

I actually watched a couple of Peter's videos over the weekend.

All he seems to care about is independence for Scotland. That appears to be his sole aim. He isn't campaigning for a new world order.

Just independence for Scotland.

What an incredibly narrow minded, rather pointless thing to spend 20 years of your life worrying about.

The real "heroes" of any "revolution" will have set their sight MUCH higher.

The rest of the fluff he is spouting in this thread is not contained in his campaign videos.

Here is a slogan you can use next time Peter, free of charge.

"An independent Scotland - who gives a fucking shit?"

[eFestivals]

It seems to stem from his poor performances at Uni to me

And perhaps it does.

But perhaps it doesn't. We've not experienced what he has, or from the viewpoint on these things that he has. That's the only point I'm attempting to make here.

I don't have much sympathy for what he's doing or how he's trying to do it. To my mind it's nearly always better to 'play the game', even if you hate how the game is played or how the rules of the game are set.

But at the same time, if Mandela had taken that view then he wouldn't be the hero around the world that he is today. Sometimes change can only come by saying 'fuck the rules'.

And it's worth noting that some within the South African National Party would say that Mandela and his doings delayed change rather than pushed it - and perhaps that's right, we can never know.

In the end, history is the only meaningful judge of these sorts of things.

[russycarps]

tthe british rule over scotland and the afrikaner rule over south africa are indescribably different.

Peter is dedicating his life to a largely pointless campaign

[eFestivals]

tthe british rule over scotland and the afrikaner rule over south africa are indescribably different.

Peter is dedicating his life to a largely pointless campaign

I think you've probably nailed it with your second point - but only history will be the judge in the end, not you or I.

But you're waaaaay off with your 1st point, dependant on where a person stands within a scenario. They are both situations where a foreign rule has been imposed by force when necessary onto the 'natives', and where what the 'natives' might want didn't come into it for the respective foreign rulers.

Of course, nowadays in Scotland the 'natives' are mostly accepting of that foreign rule, but at least some of that has been achieved by beating the natives down until they submit to and accept that foreign rule. It's certainly true that the people of Scotland have been 'sold out' to the English by their own 'leaders' on countless occasions, for the benefit of those 'leaders' but not 'the people'.

And why are many of those Scottish 'natives' accepting of English rule? Some of it is down to the propaganda that's been rammed down their throats over centuries.

(that's not me saying that the Scots should be independent btw - I think it would be a mistake for them for all sorts of reasons. But it's not my decision to make, it's theirs).

Regarding Dow's opinion on the SNP being accepting of the monarchy, I put that down to the SNP being politically smarter than he is. IMO, the SNP realise that currently it would be a step too far: why take on a mostly-meaningless battle that you might not win when there's a bigger prize at stake and the possibility of success with that one? Once they have their independence (if they do) then they can decide to take on that battle if they want to - and have a greater chance of success with it once it's a question that's framed within an independent Scotland.

[abdoujaparov]

they've both been imprisoned by the state for political campaigning of the type that the state deems illegal.

The worth that you or I might put on their campaigns is something aside from that fact, and is a purely subjective view.

Just because you might not see anything of worth to what Dow is doing doesn't alter that. In just the same way as you're regarding Dow's doings, I'm sure there were plenty of people back in the early 60s who thought that any idea of giving non-whites any political power was stupidity personified and so of no worth whatsoever.

It's context which gives history it's worth, so in a future British republic Dow might be held up as a hero* and not dismissed as a nutter. There's absolutely no way of you or I knowing how this might pan out.

(* I personally doubt it, but you never know. Stranger things have happened - like a bunch of terrorists being held up years later as shining lights of democracy. There's a huge number of examples of this, including with the USA.)

[russycarps]

I think you've probably nailed it with your second point - but only history will be the judge in the end, not you or I.

But you're waaaaay off with your 1st point, dependant on where a person stands within a scenario. They are both situations where a foreign rule has been imposed by force when necessary onto the 'natives', and where what the 'natives' might want didn't come into it for the respective foreign rulers.

Of course, nowadays in Scotland the 'natives' are mostly accepting of that foreign rule, but at least some of that has been achieved by beating the natives down until they submit to and accept that foreign rule. It's certainly true that the people of Scotland have been 'sold out' to the English by their own 'leaders' on countless occasions, for the benefit of those 'leaders' but not 'the people'.

And why are many of those Scottish 'natives' accepting of English rule? Some of it is down to the propaganda that's been rammed down their throats over centuries.

(that's not me saying that the Scots should be independent btw - I think it would be a mistake for them for all sorts of reasons. But it's not my decision to make, it's theirs).

Regarding Dow's opinion on the SNP being accepting of the monarchy, I put that down to the SNP being politically smarter than he is. IMO, the SNP realise that currently it would be a step too far: why take on a mostly-meaningless battle that you might not win when there's a bigger prize at stake and the possibility of success with that one? Once they have their independence (if they do) then they can decide to take on that battle if they want to - and have a greater chance of success with it once it's a question that's framed within an independent Scotland.

[The Nal]

Mandela was imprisoned because he was part of the leadership of a proscribed organisation in a racist state. He genuinely was persecuted by state authorities as a result of his ideas and actions

Edited December 5, 2011 by The Nal

[abdoujaparov]

Persecuted because his organisation bombed government buildings, planted mines and killed people? He was persecuted by state authorities alright, no doubt there, but not because of that.