user since
Fri Aug 28 2009 at 16:35:22 (14.7 years ago )
last seen
Sat Jul 15 2023 at 21:36:35 (10.1 months ago )
number of write-ups
35 - View Woodnot's writeups (feed)
level / experience
3 (Scribe) / 625
C!s spent
most recent writeup
Enthalpy Change
Send private message to Woodnot

Neofantasy Series: The Pot Goblin,Cryogenic Beauty,The night a princess was captured,It wasn't the prince that saved the damsel, but a pirate with a secret,A flash back to when a Soldier was built,The Vampire of Sarah, Are we then to become Cannibals for that reason?

The below information is now archived, I no longer believe that stuff. 


I am considering entering politics later in life. If you have read some of my articles, please tell me what ideologies they sound like, what political parties follow these ideologies and if there are no such parties, what would be an appropriate name for my "party". I have already been told that it seems similar to George Orwells beleifs, which would make me an Anti-Stalinist. Hey, if anything sounds like Stalinism (or Maoism, or like certain aspects of Leninism and Marxism) I'm against it.


 Shall I tell you the story of how my current ideologies came about. Some time ago, 1 year, possibly 2, I don't remember what got me thinking about it, but my Aunte told me about this interesting article in the Telegraph review magazine. In it, it was documenting a new concept known as HAC, or Human Animal Conflict. It described how all over the world, more and more people were being killed or at least attacked by other animals other than humans. Ah, now I remeber, I was considering starting a Ministary of Inter-Species relations, it would deal with possible revolts against humanity by other animals, and be the first organisation to greet aliens if they arrived. This article fueled my interest even more. When thinking about, I thought of certain humans who I feel preffered animals to other humans, most notably Peter Singer, who suggested that human foetuses, children and the mentally ill should be treated in the same way as great apes and other animals, or vice versa. I thought that these people would help any animal revolutionries in their quest to over through man. I decided to call them "Anti-Humanists", in later times I thought that this was too vague, so I coined other terms such as "Biological traitors" or "Species Traitors" (I think the latter was coined by a friend of mine.) In response I decided to refer to myself as a "Humanist". Around some time after this, I had been listening to my uncle, refering to the Communists of the past, about how Communism can act as a economic stagnator. Before then I had seen Communism as bad, purely on the bases that someone always managed to get more power and/or wealth than anyone else, so it was impracticle. What annoyed me at the time was how he said "humans are naturally lazy, and Communism allows that." I thought "how dare he make such a remark about about his own kind!" Then I started to think it through, "okay, everyone being payed equally isn't that good, but neither is the current system where you have people can get rich on inheritence, thus not have to do anything, or go on reality T.V. shows, become famous and make lots of money without having to do much." So then I thought, "how about a system, where you get payed by how much output you produce or the quality of your services etc.... A Meritocracy." So, as a result, my other ideology became Meritocracy (sometimes its just fiscal, sometimes its social as well.) So I was in the playground, thinking this through. I felt that in order to defeat the Anti-Humanists (and the other people I dislike), I'd have to form a party based around these ideologies. I decided to call this party at first the "Humanist Socialist Meritocracy Party." Then I thought "Humanism and Socialism are saught of the same thing, plus I look down on socialism, so I'll just say Humanism." So now it was called the "Humanist Meritocracy Party." I then decided that I needed to condense it to a two syllabel word. I thought of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party (or NSDAP) and how that was condensed to Nazi (I take alot of ideas from the Nazis, apart from the racist, aniti-semetic and anti-disabled ideas.) So, I ended up condensing Humanist Meritocracy Party into Herpes. I also chose Herpes since its the name for genital coldsaw, which gives the impression of a painful STD that was contaigous. "We are the Herpes, the genital warts on the genitals of evil, causing immense irritation and spreading upwards towards the heart and lungs." Around the same time, I thought this party should have a symbol. I decided this symbol should be a stick man with a flag and on this flag would be a truck of coal. Why, the stck man is a Human, the flag is a powerful symbol (thats it) and the truck of coal goes as follows. I remember watching an old, black and white holywood film about a little boys life in a welsh coal mining village. When he went to work, and then got paid, I noticed how everyone was getting paid different amounts, with his older brothers being the highest paid out of all of them (but when they recieved it they were told that they were fiered.) The only way I could make sense of it, is that they were being paid in proportion to how much coal they were hauling to the surface. Incidently, this is my idea of an ideal meritocracy, so I decided to add that to my symbols. After awhile I decided to give this symbol a name, Herpes Simplex, and he would be the main character in my propaganda stories. Since those days (not that long ago in fact) various things have changed. A lot of the time people kept telling me that I shouldn't try and be involved in politics or I should at least give my party a more apetizing name, I held firm. My first main political job for the Herpes (technically, it still even now is merely a concept, even I am not officially a Herpes), was for me to do a poster campaign during the European and County elections, advising people not to vote for the Green party (most of the posters got torn off within hours, if not minutes). After this I decided to change, not because of pressure from my friends and familly, but because the wrong saught of people were wanting to join my "party." Trust me, these people were/are highly "in your face", wouldn't leave you alone, impatient and had ideas that I disagree with (one of them kept suggesting whether I would exterminate Negroes in this country if I came to power.) For this reason I decided to make a few changes: I decided not to talk about it too much in school, I decided to change the name Herpes into H.M. (although Herpes Simplex kept his name) and for the symbol I changed it too a white human silhouette in a black circle, crossed with a sword and a pickaxe (it essentially has the same symbolism as the first symbol but in a different form.) There are certain things though that I have been uncertain about. The word Humanist is essentially a word that the renaissance artists gave to their beliefs, in which they felt people should use the things that made them "Human" such as emotion and reason, rather than just doing what holy text or the church told them to do, so they were effectively a form of European Buddhists. Subseqently "Anti-Humanists" (which include the Catholic Church and Communists) are the people who disagree with their principals.If that is the case, then if you merged my interpretation of the words "Humanist" and "Anti-Humanist" and the actual meaning of the words, then it is possible to be Humanist and an Anti-Humanist at the same time. So I've decided to change the Humanist in H.M. to "Humans" and rename the Anti-Humanists the "Anti-Humans." Also, the name H.M. sounds too much like "Her Majesties..." an organisation which I disagree with. My ideologies have been described as Naziism, Facism, Communism, Catholocism, Egotism and to myself I see reminiscents of Fundamantal Islam. I decided them, that in order to bake my beliefs, or at least find out what they are, I decided to go on the internet and show other people to help me. So, here are my beleifs and why I chose them.

Moral beliefs.

Mainly Egotism-I would generally put myself first and other people second, and most of my other beliefs are purely there to help myself

Part Utillitarian-I do however want to help other people in society who I feel get an unneeded hard time,

small amounts of Absolutism-There are certain issues that I can be very intolerant about, less and less up to the present (proove me wrong.)

Beliefs in God

Pantheism-I generally see god as being a massive force that lives alongside the universe, in the form of gravity, or electro-magnetism or energy. I sometimes think that this force can be concious, that beams of electromagnetism could come together and form computers that could be so powerful that they could be thought of as a all knowing god. I believe in scientific theorys about life and the universe, such as Evolution and the Big Bang, but I think this idea fits quite well with them.

my other ideologies and "policies"

Anthro-superiority-I believe Humans are the most significant Animal on this planet, or at least one of a small cliche of "Uber-Tier" or "Super Animals", and that we should cling onto this and not let the Anti-Humans give it back to the "Unter-Tier".

Anti-Vegetarianism-I don't want make people who are already Vegetarians give up, but I do look down on those who try and shove it down other peoples throats, and be evangelical, and I hate the idea that they might come to power and pass laws that would make everyone be vegetarian.

Inter-species diplomacy-This is one of my stranger ideas, and probably one that can be dropped. Essentially, I feel that we should try and communicate with the animals that we can communicate with (I would put money into research) and do diplomatic discussions concerning them.

That Humans should have as much control over their own life and death as the state can provide them with-For this reason, I agree with Euthanasia but disgree with Termination.

Anti Enviromental radicalism-I look down on these people mainly since they have the opposite opinions to my top three ideas (excluding Inter-species diplomacy).

Anti-Feminism-They generally agree with termination. I also dislike the fact that they indiscriminately hate men and I'm disturbed by the idea of all women becoming lesbians.

Anti-Intoxicants and Drug addicts-I think I came across this as a way of being able to discuss the subject in my head or with like-company and simultainiously rebel against my peers who are generally in favour of intoxication. I do however get really annoyed with people who try and promote intoxicants, particularly illegal intoxicants, as exceptable (I am however interested in intoxicants like alcohol, but purely from a scientific and anthropological ground.)

Authoritarianism-Some of my more tricky ideas may require a lot of force from the police in order for them to work. These ideas include legalizing all intoxicants, but only allowing them to be distributed in in an area of a settlement that has been walled off from everyone else, with the patrons having to stay inside whilst they are under the influence, and being shot at by guards if they try to escape.

Eugenics-During my more evil moments, I sometimes feel that some of the people I don't like should be shot in the genitals (say, in the unlikely event that I get into a battle with Drug Addicts etc. I think I would aim for the genitals rather than the vital areas.) This would mean that they wouldn't be able to pass on their genes, which could include the gene that makes them Drug addicts etc.

Fiscal Meritocracy-I believe that people should be paid in proportion to how hard they work and/or how much output they produce.

Social Meritocracy/Democracy(two seemingly paradoxical things)-I believe that everyone should have a say but those with merit should have more of a say than others.

State monopoly on power-I don't like how the media and political sponsors have a distrurbing amount of influence and subsequently power, I think that the state should have all the power and devide it up among the people as is necessary to do various things.

Millitantism-I do like the process for preparing for combat or the national process for preparing for war, and theres something I like about being regimented etc.

Eurosceptism-I don't like how the EU is eroding the culture and customs of Europe, and how it is sponging power from its member states.

I believe in the existance of race-I do get annoyed with anit-racists who deny the existance of race amongst humans. I believe that there are two races or major phenotypes of humans, black people and yellow people (white people I think of as being a type of yellow people). I also believe that the yellow people have some saught of advantage over the black people, but it probably has more to do with the places they come from (like europe, siberia, east asia etc.) rather than how they look or what their culture is.

I believe in helping the disabled-Most of the time, their difference has nothing to do with their own actions, so they shouldn't be penalised for it. So here are my beliefs, please help me define them, I will try my best to justify any beliefs you may have a problem with.


Well, I did some tests to find out what my ideology is, the last time I did it, I came out as very close to the middle, but I was a bit more liberal and a bit more left wing. Here are the rest.


Liberal Democrat

Centrist (closer to the left)

Social Conservative

Leninist (strangely) (UK pages only)

A bit more conservative than Bill Clinton.


I think I should weigh up my ideologies, from the my other ideologies and policies My authoritarian/conservative/right wing ideas Anthro-superiority Anti-vegetarianism Anti-enviromental radiclism Anti-feminism Anti-intoxicants and Drug addicts Authoritarianism Eugenics Fiscal meritocracy State monopoly on power Millitantism Eurosceptism "I believe in the existence of race" My liberal/progressive/left wing beliefs Inter-species diplomacy "That humans should have as much control over their own life and death as the state can provide them with" Sexuel liberalism "I believe in helping the disabled" My more confused and central beliefs Pro-condoms and sheaths Social meritocracy/democracy Lets do this more thouroughly (in this part one idea could go in 1-3 sections). Authoritarian (the desire for all the power to be concentrated in a few) Anthro-superiority Anti-feminism Authoritarianism Eugenics State monopoly on power Millitantism Eurosceptism Liberal (the desire for there to be no laws or restrictions by a few people,) Sexuel liberalism "That humans should have as much control over their own life and death as the state can provide them with" Conservative (the desire for everything to remain the same) Anthro-superiority Anti-vegetarianism Anti-enviromental radiclism Anti-feminism Anti-intoxicants and Drug addicts Eurosceptism "I believe in the existence of race" Progressive (the desire for things to change) Inter-species diplomacy Sexuel liberalism "I believe in helping the disabled" I think I'm getting the picture that I'm a rather right wing person.


Well, how did and do my beliefs come about, well, one of the main reasons was that so many years ago I briefly (for quite a few months that is) developed a very distinct phobia of the concept of Termination. This affected alot of my beliefs. Another thing is that I am one of those people who have a very distinct tendancy to hate and be intolerant. In particular I hate alot of the students at my school, in particular the "chavvy" males (and females as well). Plus there is my old mission drive within everything (what I thought at the was just an expression of what guided you through life) which you can use. Another aspect is how I build other beliefs on top of older ones. This is essentially how my ideologies have formed (along with a large amount of abstract thinking).


Possibly the most fantastic ongoing discussion ever.(Note, this is not the order this conversation was spoken in, this is merely a collection of statements from the Humans Meritocracy Party or HM as I will call them, statements from Say no to the humanist meritocracy party, and The Unnamed Party, which I will cal TR and statements from third parties, whom I'll call An. These statements have been organised into a conversation but this is not how they were written. Bold type is where I've made something up for sake of flow).

TR:There is a party, or at least a manifesto (an incomplete one at that) which I am against. It is called the Human Meritocracy Party, and for the most part I don't like it. Anyone who has come across this 'party' before can become a fan, if they don't like it.

HM: They have decided to start a "hate" group against us called simply "Say no to human meritocracy party", so if he's planning to bitch, i'm gonna bitch back. Heh, I'm up for healthy debate, and since this is over the Internet, I can't hurt anyone if I get highly stressed out when I'm losing.

TR:OK they have decided to call this a 'hate group'. It is not. It is a place where I give my opinions about this Human Meritocracy and that is about to change.

HM:But don't you see We Homo Sapiens are a "Herren-Tier" or "super animal", exactly what defines us as that could be conciousness, self awareness, advanced social abilities etc, and for that reason we must help each other over other animals, in particular the "Unter-Tier" or "under animals", and that in working with the other Herren-Tie...r we can forge a somwhat better life.

TR:That statement is the first idea of Human meritocracy. And in blunt, its wrong. Because we are in no way above other animals because we are Godly or anything like that. We are meerly freak accidents, mutations in genes, one after the other and through millions of years we became what we call humans. Yes it could said we have done far more than animals, but have we really? You see all we base our world upon is what we see hear, smell feel and taste around us, and what we choose to believe. All of this could be false. How do we know we are better than, say, Dolphins? All we have is the evidence of what could easily be a fevered imagination.And we've done nothing to earn this position other than demmand dominance, not caring for what we slaughter, wipe out or ruin the life of. So how can we say, in a time where the world is falling to pieces around us because of human meddling, that we are better than animals?

HM: For the most part, this is a fair enough statement, but the main flaw is the persistent idea that evolution is a random process. However, the choices that an organism makes in it's life can alter it's evolution. For example, lets say the evolution of language, say one early person was thinking to itself about using noises to denote objects and concepts, and then decided to have a go by making up the first words of humanity. Soon these words start to spread around that group. Some of these early people have slightly longer pharynx's and can say these words more clearly, they start to get along better in this new gruop, others with shorter pharynx's don't do as well and start to fall back.So even though the random hand of luck did certainly play a part, the choices of that individual ultimately changed the course of Evolution. As well as this, scientists studying two indendical twins, one being straight and the other being gay, discovered that a persons experiences actually alter's the structure of their DNA. This idea of solopsism (nothing existing outside of the mind) is very deep philosophical water, so I'd better swim carefully. "How do we know we are better than, say, Dolphins" I could go through the almost infinate number of artistic and technological acheivements of humanity, but that would probably be counter-productive. Instead I would just say that the wholepoint of my "Anthro-Superiority" stance is essentially utillitarian i.e. humanity working together for the sake of helping each other, the concept of "Herren-Tier" and "Unter-Tier" is more to do with identifying what needs help and what can be served on a plate this Christmas, as opposed to "Ha, Ha, look how wonderful we are." As for the claim that we don't deserve our position we have only done, what any other animal, Herren-Tier or Unter-Tier, would have done to survive and/or thrive, given they had access to the same technology and knowledge. I'm sure that if Dolphins had invented nets, they would have emptied the seas in the same way we have up to date. In other words, we Homo Sapiens have done everything that is valid in the eyes of Evolution to acheive the position in the food chain we have at the moment. I would agree that the Earth is entering a time of chaos, and whilst we're not entirely sure about Global warming, Ecological collapse is certainly being caused by Human activities. However, we might not necessarily be destroying the ecosystem, we may simply be changing it into a different form.

TR: Uh... we haven't done what evolution allows. We've done far more. Instead of just trying to survive we are damaging the enviroment and its inhabitants for personal gain i.e. money, entertainment and so on. That line about Anthro-Superiority being utillitarian is a bit odd. You see as well as helping ourselves (even though we seem pretty well off at the moment) we have to be careful not to upset the balance of nature. And why shouldn't we help animals? Surely if we're so great, then we have moved past a time where it is every animal for itself? And finnally evolution is entirely random. Yes only the fittest survive, but the changes themselves are meerley mistakes. We are no better than animals. When did an animal last mass kill its own kind? When did an animal commit paedophillia (A line has been deleted for reasons of personal security)? When did a species last commit Genocide, bar the human race?

HM: When we Homo Sapiens started damaging the environment in order to thrive, rather than just survive, we were and are essentially moving into a different level of evolution. You see, you have natural selection, which is based around day to day survival, and then you have sexual selection, which is based around being sexualy attractive thus able to have lots of sex and children therefore spreading your genes. It is often said that money (and wealth) is one of the ultimate aphrodisiacs, which will be part of the reason why some people aim to get lots of money. And striving to gain personal comfort is also sexual selection, since when your more comfortable you'll be in a better mood to have sex. So we haven't really blast off the skyscraper of evolution, we've just moved to a different level. I would agree with him there that we should strive not to upset the web of life, thats what supports us. The thing is, we already help quite alot of animals, although entirely for self serving reasons, in the form of domestication. You see, although many of those animals suffer considerably, particularly they that live in intensive farms, it is considerably better for them than it would be in a wild enviroment. And I quote Carl Cohen "I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations." In other words, people who think we should treat all species as equals without question will ultimately waste their time. Once again I go back to the identical twins, ones gay, the others straight, how did that happen, well the experiences of one of them altered their DNA, therefore that individual changed evolution through their actions. Also there has recently been discovered evidence of Lamarkism at cellular level. This argument about animals not doing as bad'er things as humans is very old. A group of Chimpanzee's were once observed exterminating all the males in the opposite group over a period of 4 years. Chimps don't really count since they are near identical to us humans, but alot of animals will kill each other over territory as we ourselves as a species do. As for peadophillia, whilst I can't think of any animal who would be sexually attracted to babies of it's species (except perhaps Bonobos, the randiest of them all), most animals will try to have sex with individuals who have only just reached puberty in that animals life cycle. Just to move on to a different topic, I believe that As for our interactions between each other as a species, from topics such as wages up to making decisions, this shall be governed by the rule of Merit or "a persons idividual skill, talent and/or ability", and this shall rule over heredetrism, the rule of money, even the rule of the poeple.

TR: Thats the next idea. An idea to judge an argument or opinion on three things which are held in opinion, and is hard to prove with fact. Need I say more?

HM:What....that line hardly makes sense. But I can just about get his point on closer inspection. I would agree that like Communism, Meritocracy does inadvertently give a few people alot of power. However, I would say Meritocracy, or at least my interpretation of Meritocracy, would be much better than the current system in which someone who serves 10 people in an hour gets paid the same as someone who serves 1, and were the vote of someone who has spent hours researching each candidate and their policies is worth the same as someone who just randomly votes for someone out of indifference or because “that’s who me family has always voted for”. May I make another point, that there has been a distinct poisoning of western culture in the last 200-100 years or so.The agents of this change includes Disney, and similar production companies. This poisoning is the belief that animals are equal to humans, or closer to the point, all animals should be treated as our pets. They call themselves veggie-anarchists, or choose not to comment, I however refer to them as "Anti-Humans" or very rarely "Species Traitors". It can take various forms, mainly anthropoperipherism, or an irrational belief in other animal's equality with Humans, resulting in a preference for animals over humans. Some Anti-Humans are totally innocent, like old ladies who are prefer their pet dogs over other people. However some are distinctly sick, most notably of all is Peter Singer, the man whom the term "Anti-Humanist" was invented to describe. Essentially, whilst arguing in support of Termination, involuntary Euthanasia and even Infanticide, he chose to compare the mental capacities of children, foetuses and the mentally ill with that of more intelligent animals.

TR: Whoa, hang on. All of the last three posts are a part of these ideas. And once again, almost all of them are wrong. I believe that more intelligant animals are as intelligant as adult humans. We have no way of knowing they are less inteligant, we are meerly vain enough to assume it. Although I dont agree with involuntary euthanasia i do agree with the man he talks of in the last post for the most part.

HM: 1. For starters we do have ways to tell that Humans are more intelligent than animals (such as the famous mirror test, and also brain scanning, and lots of smaller but equaly effective tests) but once again this isn't going to convince a solopsopist like TR. 2. I believe that we should be helping all Human life (unless specifically said so).

TR:But You see you have no true way to say that animals are less inteligent, even though I haven't heard of this mirror test I doubt it is conclusive.

HM: Your right Flinn, the mirror test is riddled with flaws, not least because most animals recognise each other with smells, but I'm sure brain scanning will provide a far more accurate conclusion once they get it going. May I add that from my view point, one Anti-Human policy seems to be to order to lower the population of humans on earth, so that not as much land is needed, to provide space for some god forsaken racoon we call the Giant Panda. Nothing could entice me more than this. God Forsaken Racoon? What has a racoon ever done and more importantly what has a panda ever done?

TR: They meerly lead peaceful lives, until we come along, steal their food and ruin their habitat. And we're better than them? Still, what does HM have against Pandas?

HM: I have nothing against Pandas whatsoever, or anything in favor of them, I was simply using them as an example of Anti-Humanist madness. Just to say, It seems like all of TRs arguments are based around solopsism. Well, if nothing exists outside of the mind, then all the things in your life, Flinn, they will also be a figment of the imagination. Does that thought scare you? Whatever the answer, good?

TR: Not all my ideas are based around Solopsism. The only reason I use philosoophy is to prove that your argument is not water tight. OK will, in your thing about how HERPES came about you say about someone suggesting an extermination of black people. Who was it?

HM: It was that twat AN

TR: You also said you had"small amounts of Absolutism-There are certain issues that I can be very intolerant about, less and less up to the present (proove me wrong.)" What ideas are these.

HM: Absolutism is a religious concept refering to people who take the teachings of their holy book literrally without interpretation, and can be used to refer to anyone with a rigid sense of right and wrong, as opposed to A Situationalist, who believes that you can only judge on these things when you are in a particular situation.

TR:no HM waht ideas are u absolutionist about

HM: Well let me think, there is my opposition to Drug addicts for a start, also if we are talking about being intolerant then I get very annoyed with, well, I've mentioned alot of them. In many ways when I say I'm being Absolutists I'm just saying that on certain days I can get incredibly stressed with people who disagree with me, and you know that.

TR:Okay thenRecently I created what was called a hate page against a political manifesto. Its not, but moving on, this is a politcal party (for want of a better word) I want you to help me create. This party has to have some ideas it can base itself on, and these are my suggestions.

HM: TR has now decided to start his own party called the Unnamed party, which has already got far more members than this one (5:1). Yet, alot of what TR has to say is very similar to what I have to say, so in building a fortress to keep me away, he may be doing some damage

TR: OK the Humanist Meritocarcy wants to put me down here, so I'm going to answer a few questions. (and by the way you don't count as a fan so its 4:0) But I would like to clear one thing up. Will states that gay people alter their DNA through experiences. Wrong, DNA cannot be altered by experiences and there have be results showing people are born gay or straight.As for policy. Firstly, racism, in all forms is wrong and unaceptable. I believe we are all equal. And we must be treated as equals. Only racists and those like them should be treated without respect.

HM: If by racism he means racial hatred then I would certainly agree with him there. (For the following quote you must understand that I believe that the concept of "white" people is made up and that we "white" people are basically a variation of "Yellow" people). However, according to official statistics, for every 2 "black" people there are on earth there are 8 "yellow" people. So thats 4 "yellow" people to 1 "Black" person, and on average (with the odd exception) that 1 person would be considerably poorer than those 4 others. The argument that this gap is purely down to the ruthless and unfair exploitation of Black Africans and Black Australians by European colonialists is slightly pointless, since if our ancestors were doing the exploiting, what exactly gave them an advantage. The answer most likely has it's origins in the natural a geological features of Eurasia, the place were we yellow people evolved from black hunter-gatherers all those thousands of years ago, rather than any genetic or cultural difference

TR: Secondly, we are a part of Earth, and we must protect it. We should not kill animals unless for food. Not for entertainmentm or land. Hunting is acceptable, as long as humans do not interfere with the hounds chasing the stag/fox to change the outcome as this is not natural.

HM: I personnally have little against what he is saying here, but perhaps what he doesn't realize is that in being against me, he is helping those who will be against his ideas. He says that we should not kill for entertainment, yet he supports fox and stag hunting which, amognst other things, is a form of entertainment. Need I say more? He also says inadvertently that we can kill animals for food, yet under an Eco-Nazi or Eco-Commie dictatorship (the thing which I'm trying to prevent) they would almost certainly force people to become vegetarians or even vegans.

TR: We are humans, all of us and we must be untied. I believe that Britain should help all opressed countries, including those without oil. We should not be afraid to give aid to those who need it and fight those who are doing wrong.

HM: Hey, I agree that we Homo Sapiens should be united, along with the other Herren-Tier, but to what extent? You see, both of us are self proclaimed Eurosceptics, me because I'm against the EUs destruction of a multi-cultural and economically diverse Europe by means of standardizing products and services etc. and their support for big business, as for TRTR saying, "Oh, you don't like the EU, good, the EUs S**t, I know we really need their help because of the recession, but once thats over we should get out". However this was a long time ago, so perhaps things have changed a bit. Oh and their are signs that culture is being eradicated, such as the removal of a cruxcifix at a catholic school in Italy for example.

TR: 1 sign it 'eradicates' culture (although religion is a dodgy one and I did say it has its faults) anymore?

HM: Not at the moment... Besides, what Flinn is describing is essentially interventionalism, which is okay for a big country like the U.S.A, but not really so good for a slightly smaller country like us. and I can also remember Flinn saying, only 7 or 8 days ago "Why should we in Britain be trying to cancel the debt of other countries when we've got a massive debt ourselves", that quote seems to fly in the face of that statement.

TR:Moving on to another policy We should pull out of Iraq. We have no reason to be there. We pull out immediately and leave it. If there is upset or any of the below, then we return.

HM: That is such a stupid statement, WE HAVE ALREADY LEFT IRAQ, the only British soldiers there at the moment will be the embassy guards, all the patrols will be either at home in GB or in Afghanistan or wherever else the Armed forces go. If you meant we should pull out of Afghanistan, now that would be a proposition. What people don't realise is that Afghanistan is the site of a major oil pipeline and for that reason it helps to keep the place stable to make the construction easier.Many people considerably underestimate the significance of oil in this society. There's the obvious examples, such as cars and other transport, then there are less obvious examples like energy and plastics, and even the food we eat will have been grown using fertillisers made in oil powered furnaces (unless you buy organic). The people who say "No war for oil" are either totally ignorant about the importance of oil in todays society or are eco-people who have the time to make an effort to use less oil. Personally however, prove me if I'm wrong, but the principles of fundamental islamic terrorists are far more similar to true European principles than the EU/Californian liberalism that infects the western world today. Perhaps we should team up with some of these groups (with a certain amount of bargaining) to fight Drug addicts and there associates.

TR: Aparently we're out Iraq, well 'officially'. We're still in Afghanistan though, so lets get out of there! As a further policy Education should be at a high standard for all. Schools with good OFSTED reports should be funded so they can take more students and have a larger catchment area, while other schools are improved.

HM: Heh, I would highly agree with his stance on Education, the other option is that children just get sent to the school thats nearest to them and that the Board works hard to make all schools good, but TRsCarry on.

TR:Healthcare should be the same in every hospital, with regular and strict reviews.

HM: I don't really know what to say to that (in a good way).

TR: Immigration laws should be tightened, but immigration should still exist. We should aim to improve other countries so people do not need to risk life and limb to come here.

HM:Sounds quite good, however, if you think about it, it is simply another example of TRs unsustainable interventionism, so rather than the world coming to us, we go out to the world to make sure it doesn't come to us. Need I say more?

TR:Unemployment money should be reduced radically and every effort made to create new jobs.

HM:That sounds very good, but if he decided to read Daylog October 24, 2009, Woodnots proposals for an improved economy, you/he would notice that I have also planned a very similar idea myself.

TR:Their should be free acomodation for the homeless everywhere, with nearby buisnesses where they can get work and medical help for any addictions.

HM: Sounds good, however, it may be better just to make it easier to be homeless. If say they broadend the definition of an addresss, a homeless person could settle down at any random bench, use that as an address, perhaps with some luck find a job, build up some cash then use that money to get a home of saughts. But no... an address has to be attached to a building with 4 walls and a roof, and if that goes away you suddenly are unnable to do anything. TRs idea, although very nice, probably wouldn't solve that fundamental problem. As for the help with addictions, I would say that all people who intend to take drugs, from homeless alcoholics to Football star cocaine addicts, should be made to take those drugs in a walled off area were they won't be able to harm innocent bystanders.

TR: If anyone doesn't agree with the below or wants to add something please, go ahead.

HM:Well yes actuallyThe general theme of the Unnamed party sounds quite good (bar the things I've criticised) but I wonder how much of it is TRs real opinions and how much is just him trying to sound good.

TR:A quick message to the HERPES party - these are ideas I believe in. Accusing me of saying things to make myself look good is odd when your partys ideas are all for the benefit of its leader, not for other peoples. Everyone who is a fan of this party - send invitations to your friends! If you agree with these ideas, then the only way to get anything done about them is to tell people! DO IT NOW!!!! wait for it YES! 5 star post quality and 11 fans! This is getting better and better!

HM:What this post quality thing is to do with I don't know, but An is also a member of this party, he is essentially a referee. Either way The Unnamed Party is doing considerably better than the Herpys, but that might change.

TR:13 fans? That isn't nearly enough. Recruit people recruit. OK, used the political compass and I'm scarily close to HM, which doesn't mean my opinions are the same as his, and hes a lot more authoritarian.

HM:I think that, perhaps with the help of An, we should try and find some common ground, it seems the only thing we really argue about at the moment is ecology, environment, the rights of other life, mans position om earth and in the universe etc. and i'm sure when it comes down to more main stream topics we may have quite similar opinions.

TR:OK, the Humanist Meritocracy party now has, believe it or not, 6 fans. Not that I am opposed to healthy competition, but WE MUST CRUSH THEM. cough. We need to spread the messages on here guys. Oh and by the way, The Humanist Meritocracy party hates David Attenbourough. So come on, fans of David, pull together!

HM: Now why does he say "WE MUST CRUSH THEM", I understand where we have disagreements, but that implies we are some sought of immemse danger to the world. A question to TR, "How could our policies be a danger to the world, or was that just a figure of speech?".TR in his most recent post has pointed out my personal dislike of David Attenborough, and has asked fans of David to join. First thing to point out is that it is very useful in life to differentiate between people and what they do. David Attenborough has done wonders for promoting wild life and bringing natural hist...ory programs into the main stream, and I personnally enjoy his programs. However, judging from his back ground and general personality, he is very much a member of the current middle-middle class, which consists namely of university lecturers, GPs, Lawyers etc. In terms of political values, the genaralisation of this class, as summed up by the Observer is "Liberally thinking but any left wing thoughts are quickly blown away when they see there how much National Insurence thier paying." In other words, they'd generally support political and social change but would be against government control over the distribution of money and the general economy. Whilst David Attenborough is certainly alot harder than most of these people (i.e. going out into freezing cold and steaming hot conditions) but I imagine that attitude will follow him where he goes. In recent years he has become increasingly active in the field of environmental protection, with a general theme that reducing the number of human beings on earth will solve everything. What many people don't realise is that he is a member of the Optimum Population trust, a ""Charity"" which recently was reported to have pressurized an old but healthy women into committing suicide! How does this connect with his social background and "assumed" political beleifs? Well...... lets consider this little story

Boredom Ground: I believe that climate change and the resulting habitat destruction, would be a great shame to the planet, and I believe we must do something about it.

Davie A: Yeah... lets save the rainforest, lets save the yeti, lets save all those other wonderful habitats WOOO................

Boredom Ground: ....... and I'm going to do this by imposing a greenhouse gas tax on eveything, which is proportionate to how much gas it produces or is produced in it's production.

Davie A: Uhh....I would lose out quite alot with that one, with my big house in london and all er...... wouldn't it be easier just to find away of getting rid of all the poor magets that eat away at our ecosystem?

Boredom Ground: I may think about that option (Boredom Grounds brain: Eco-Nazi, Eco-Nazi, Eco-Nazi, Anti-Humanist, Anti-Humanist.........)

This story is totally made up but is there to make a clear point, and that is there is a clear reason for the Humans Meritocracy party at least to dislike him (even if Flinn and the unnamed still find this insulting) Furthermore Recently, Flinn has joined the group, don't yo f****ing hate the League Against Cruel Sports. Whilst I don't have a problem with this action, it does seem ironic that he is working against an Anthro-Superiority group, considering that the L.A.C.S. advocates trans-species equality (although anti-hunt movements are by far less Anti-Human than lets say Anti-Vivvisectionists).Whilst I currently have less of a problem with deer and pheasant hunting, I am somewhat uncertain about fox hunting, 'cause due to there close relasion to dogs, and that before people start hunting them they are an apex predator (like us), that should qualify them for Herren-Tier status (although I would lke some more behavoral evidence). Once again, it seems ironic that someone who says that we cannot prove that Humans are more intelligent than Dolphins (whom qualify for Herren-Tier status even more than foxes) supports a concept (hunting) whose main ethical backing is that Human hunters have a higher moral right than that of their quarry is in many ways ludicrous.

TR:Ok, I'm now being accused from the Herpes party of being a hypoctrite, obviously they can't read. A) I don not like the League against cruel sports not because of their beliefs, but because of how they go about things, with sticking cameras in peoples faces acceptable. Secondly I am for fox hunting as long as the humans do not interfere dog chasing fox, only watch. I stated the point about dolphins to reference the great Douglas Adams and show how utterly ridiculous the idea of anthro superiority is.On a different note17 fans. I like. We need more to start a revolution though. Keep inviting friends, kep spreading the message and we can take over the country... YES WE CAN!

HM:The Unnamed party currently has 18 fans willst we are currently a mere 7. However, this is the Humans Meritocracy Party, not the Humans Democracy party. Therefore I wish to prove our substance through starting a few discussion pages, so that we can be more engaged.So come on, lets get discussing stufff!!!!!!!!!!

TR: More policies from me Education should be standardised accross the country. Everyone should have the same starting point in life, not have an advantage because of their families wealth/poverty.

HM:Now this is an idea I like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! With the occaisional exception (and even these exceptions are when I'm in my extreme moods) I do believe in equality of opportunity, (although I'm against equality of outcome).NowIt seems that with 80%c. topics, The Unnamed Party and the Humans Meritocracy Party seem to agree, I don't want us to become like Labour and Conservative, who agree with most things but only really compete with each other to get an advantage, thus halting progress.You know Will Humans Meritocracy ever catch on as a political ideology, In my head, I like to see my self becoming the prime-minister or dictator of Britain and introducing reforms. However, it is likely that within my life time it will remain something of a minority belief (but I will still try).

TR: No

HM: Why not, TR

TR: Because Democracy is so much better, fairer and logical.

HM: Why is democracy logical in any way?

TR: Because its fair! Because it gives principal of self determination to millions! Logic = Choosing who rules over you.

HM: Well, just check out how Everything2 runs things, there system allows a good deal of self-determination whilst making sure that someone who is good at essay writing gets more power than some total maniac. Go on, check it out now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TR: No. I will not join your nutjob cult. You can't base a political system for a whole bloody country on one website. And I don't care how many policies of mine you like - our basic principles on which our parties are based are polar opposites, there can be no merge or cooperation.

HM: I don't expect you to join "my nutjob cult", I'm just giving a rather forced offer of investiing it for the purpose of understanding. You can get alot of information about it on Wikipedia.And we may be based on polar-opposites, but so is Labour and Conservative, Conservative is based around the principle of protecting the pre-industrial upper class from the "evils" of bourgeoise revolution (Booo conservatives), whilst Labour is based around the principle of starting the Proleteriat revolution (Boo Labour), but they still "supposedly" manage to have very similar policies (I personnally support Gordon Brown on most things). I think I may as well stop trying to convince you now. By the way, this discussion isn't about whether Humans Meritocracy is a good ideology, but rather will it catch on?

TR: It won't catch on because its terrible ideology. 100% inheritance tax is a bit of a ridiculous idea. The government shouldn't steaql from the dead, no matter how rich they are.

HM:Just talk to AN about his future and you'll soon realise that "stealing from the dead" may not be such a bad idea........... Going back to my personal economic beliefs, I do feel that there should be state ownership to a degree, if you read my economic manifesto you may be aware of my idea of conviscation by the state for those who really do not follow the governments policies.

TR: Thoughts on economy: NEP is a good idea. Its baisically communism but you get set a quota of work you have to do, then if you meet it you get given what you need to survive. If you work over quota you get given more money in bonuses. I would change it a little - there would be no state ownership of businesses but they would be monitored and all their decisions must go through a government body.

HM:Hhhhhhhhhhh............. salivation.............. this is just another one of The Unnamed Party policies I like! (See my thoughts on the economy on E2 for more)

TR:What does this mean,Its sounds kinda rough...n 21 fans! kickin ur ass. Speaking of which Woo! 21 fans! The revolution begins! Nah I'm just kiddin'.

HM:I'm just copying my mother and what she would do in this situation (but she'd probably join your party over mine, yours suits her more) it is saught of over exaggerated, which is part of the "charm".

TR:Also the wealthy who have enough money not to work - tough. You will have to work, like it or not. We would not take your mony away, you can keep your luxuries, but as long as you earn it.

HM: Welll...., that one I'm not so sure about, most people nowadays seem to work purely to save enough money so that they won't have to work when there old, and it would seem quite harsh to try and stop that. If by wealthy you mean Aristocrats then I sought of support Flinn (although I would be somewhat less direct, such as supporting 100% inheritence tax rather than just forcing people to work with a whip.)It seems Flinn is becoming increasingly Socialist, even communist, as time goes on. Whilst Humans Meritocracy isnt entirely against communism, in the same way it isn't entirely against most main stream ideologies, Socialism (and all that 'implies) is Meritocracies left opposition, Likewise, Aristocracy is Meritocracies right opposition, Free Market Capitalism is in opposition (amongst other reasons) because it gives Aristocracy a chance to regrow due to the lack of control, and all these forces mix together to form the manure for the great enemy of Anthro-Superiority, the Anti-Humans (this alot of ideologies, such as "Deep" Ecology, Eco-Facism etc.)What the...WooooooooWeeeeeeeee, the Unnamed Party have nearly 4 times more members. We need to make up for this in substance, so come owwn, add photos, leave posts, discuss, do somethin peopaaaaaaaaallllllll! Come to think of it I have just checked something out, and it turns out a page called simply "We love Will Morley" has the same amount of fans as both this party and the Unnamed parties fans put together. Just to put things in perspective.AlsoIt was once commented by TR that Ans profile picture looked like a mug shot-any comments.

TR:I've just seen this strange picture, and WTF,HM that picture of me n u u did is the single most disturbing thing ever with the caption making no sense. REMOVE IT. NOW.

HM:If you want to understand what it means, it's a comical depiction of the current ideological struggle between us at the moment, using the fact that we are both somewhat over-weight. There are no intentional homo-sexual connotations (I did actually try and remove any potential connotations) merely a bizaare take on the age old concept of "locking horns". I could have quite easily just doctered a photograph of two stags fighting with cartoon heads of ourselves. Either way I understand your concerns and I will remove it now.

TR:BesidesWhy do you hate feminism? You just sexist or what?

HM:Yes, if you think I'm a chaeuvenist or misodgynist, then I am, I'm not going to try and cover my arse like other people do. Either way, just look up the Revolutionary Feminists of the "70s and you'll see why (in my opinion) that men should really not call themselves feminists, particularly straight men, but neither GBT men either. They also go hand in hand with Anti-Humans (the R.F. wanted all humanity (or at least women) to become LGBTs, which would of at that stage resulted in the extinction of Homo Sapiens, Anti-Humans want to bring about(or at least are unconcerned with) the extinction of Homo Sapiens, can you begin to see the appeal.) However I think I started to hate feminism long before I invented the term Anti-Humans.

TR:What the...The Herpes party is catching up - damn the idiots who do not understand their leaders ramblings!

HM: There has just been a sudden influx of members to this group, but, as TR want us to believe, may not entirely understand the workings of this group. So heres a few key points, becoming a fan does not make you a member of the Humans Meritocracy Party, for that you must first have a conversation with me, then you must swear an oath to me and then I have to write your name down on the list and give you a members card.Secondly, at times our policies may come across as Xenophobic (Xenophobia=Fear of strangers) and even racist, and unlike the BNP we're not going to cover our arses over it.However, unlike AN in his insane moments, we are not genocidal maniacs (genocide=to kill a race/races) and race hatred is in no way key to Humans Meritocracy.Thirdly, patience is a virtue with the Humans Meritocracy Party, and anyone who thinks that being intimidating (that means being scary, in your face, offensive etc) towards me is going to get them somwhere they have another thing coming.If any of this has put you off this party completely, you are welcome to leave. Also I am introducing a schisming policy, so if any member feels they want to leave but like certain aspects (points) they can form their own party wth a different but similar name.

TR: Nice to see you are already practicing lying to your fans there HM. You didn't explain to them what the term Human Meritocracy meant, all you said is that you are racist (all respect lost) and that becoming a fan doesn't make you a member. Well done you, you're the next Tony Blair.

HM: Very interesting TR, one thing I advise people to do when they come to this page is to refresh it a few times in case one of my posts has not been shown. What you have described is not lying, its called avoiding a question, all politicians do it in awkward situations, not just liars. Like wise I did in fact point out to them the web links they could go to to find out about our/my ideology. And I didn't say that we are racist, I said that some of our beliefs may COME ACROSS as Xenophobic and occaisionally racist, but if you'd refreshed your page you'd discover my point that we are not Genocidal maniacs. My points are predominately against they who put political correctness before scientific and often abject reality. Most of what I have written then was an attempt to prevent this party being hijacked by potentially idiotic right wing idividuals by putting them off at this point.

TR: So u avoided the question. You should still tell your fans what u r about!

HM: In response to Flinns claim of dishonesty, I'm just going to post the two main principles of this group. ý1. We Homo Sapiens are a "Herren-Tier" or "super animal", exactly what defines us as that could be conciousness, self awareness, advanced social abilities etc, and for that reason we must help each other over other animals, in particular the "Unter-Tier" or "under animals", and that in working with the other Herren-Tier we can forge a somwhat better life. ý2. As for our interactions between each other as a species, from topics such as wages up to making decisions, this shall be governed by the rule of Merit or "a persons idividual skill, talent and/or ability", and this shall rule over heredetrism, the rule of money, even the rule of the poeple. There is also a third, equally important side to this party, but due to my parents cencorship orders I cannot talk about it online, but if any of you meet me at school I will tell you. It is similar to the "Nations struggle" described by Nationalists and Facists but still very different to any common belief in philosophy, sociology and psychology to date. Sorry about the use of big words, just comment if you don't understand one of them.

AN: HM apparently you were looking for me at school? Its nice to see this explanation of the party, am starting to understand it more now. I have heard about weighed votes in this party, could I have more details on this?

HM: This is HM speaking, well with weighed votes, lets think of most normal voting, each vote is worth the same, 1 per person. This means that someone voting totally randomly has the same power as someone voting very carefully, which isn't really good. However, neither is a system in which the people have no control at all, since it puts all the pressure onto a few people, thus these individuals eventually begin to crack (over generations, that is, usually through corruption and decadence), there fore it is unsustainable. So whats the answer to both these problems, well there are a few answers, and one of which is that rather than each vote being one vote per person, a system is set so that some peoples votes are worth more than others. Exactly what this is could be IQ, time spent studying the options, time spent at official political discussions etc. Some people would suggest voting by money, however I see this as being somewhat twisted and it doesn't take into account people who inherited their money or aquired it through fowl deeds. This is however just one way of constitutionly enforcing the rule of merit, there are other possible ways (see my constitution). HM out.

AN: Interesting thanks for the explanation.

TR: Weighed votes or meritocracy is not a good idea. Hitler was a genius, so his vote would count highly, but he was also a mass murdering fuckhead to quote Eddie Izzard. And what is the third part of humans meritocracy? Just send me a message with it will you?

HM: Uhhh............ since when was Hitler a genius, sure he was quite good at propaganda (although not as good as Dr Goebbels, whom he gave the job) and he had a few very intelligent people working for him, but I really don't think he was in anyway a genius. He was very unadaptive to the mood of the time he was living in, that is probably why he failed to get into the Vienna Art Academy, thus forcing him onto the street as a beggar and in general setting his way to becoming the Fuhror. The Nazis (includig Hitler) have turned into the Dialecks since there defeat in 1945, in that everything they touch (or are associated with) quickly turns into some horrible nightmare. For this reason most organisations will use Naziism at some point in there personal propaganda for and against something. For this reason I don't think Flinns argument is entirely valid. That was HM speaking, and is out.

TR:Hitler was undeniably a genius. He managed to turn an economic downturn inot his sucess, and you, HM, are a man who believes Mussolini was a great political thinker.

HM: But he was, he was the man who came up with the concept of facism, by blending the authoritarian and meritocratic beliefs of Plato, the unique views on marxist communism of Goegre Soros, the "social darwinian"* beliefs of Nietche and the economic views of Vilfredo Pareto, along with his and his friends personal nationalistic feelings (due to them feeling that Italy got less out of Versailles than they had put into WW1) into the great reaction against communism, facism. I could have said that I was the greatest political thinker since Karl Mark but why, when that role was already filled by Benito Moussolini. *Social Darwinism (which is the belief of applying the theory of evolution into social and economic settings (Eugenics is a form of social darwinism, but whilst most simply wish to allow human evolution to take place randomly, eugenics involves actively selectively breeding humans to make sure we/they evolve as wanted)) is in some ways an inaccurate term since Darwin didn't actually believe this. Whilst he certainly (even famously) believed that human life WASN'T super-natural, he did feel that humanity had saught of evolved out of evolution, and disagreed with, even joked about, people who believed/believe other wise. Now thenWe've been at it for months now, so I guess we are both starting to to get an idea of each others political ideas. So, what political ideology do you think I have, do you still think its akin to facism/naziism or do you think it is something different. I would say the unnamed party is something between social democracy and (true) anarchism.

TR:Anarchism? How does that work? Whats anarchic about what I have written? Fair, yes, anarchic no.

HM:This is a typical missunderstanding of Anarchism by lay folk. Anarchism is not a lack of order, its a lack of orderS. A lack of order (or desire there of) is known as Libertarianism. The difference between the two is that Anarchists tend to be left wing whilst Libertarians tend to be centre or right wing. Another term for anarchism would be "extreme left wing libertarianism."

TR:I know, U said before, But there isn't a lack of order.

HM:There isn't meant to be :):)

TR:I mean in my party you idiotic numbats!!

HM:thats what I meant, either way your avoiding my original question.

TR:No Will you are avoiding my question, just give me a straight answer.

HM:Well your ideas seem to convey a general sense of left wing libertarianism and progressiveness. There is a very strong sense of the government intervening to insure economic justice, whilst also showing a small amount of interest in preserving peoples social and moral liberties, combined with progressive ideas about race, nature etc. This combined with a sense of being a revolutionary movement give off this Anarchist feel, that is why I mentioned Anarchism. However, I don't think your extreme enough to actually be an anarchist, and I think your ideas are too radical to be an everyday social democrat, so I would saythe Unnamed party is somewhere between the two. Now, this is what I think your ideology is and why I think that. So what do you think my ideology is and why do you think that.

TR:The ramblings of a mad man. Because I met you.

HM: That is fair enough, Thanks.

TR:Speaking of Facists, If by some horrible chance the BNP are elected as this country government I vote we overthrow them. Agreed?

HM:This is of course a pointless statement since the BNP don't have a candidate for Taunton Deane this election. Now, I'm guessing that since the Unnamed party is the reaction to the Humans Meritocracy party, I guess that they would support democracy, but if (no further information could be salvaged)