More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tSTgUSU8hg
I see the crap artist has crept out of the crypt, crapped and crept back (before daylight shines at a guess).
Meanwhile sentient beings are aware of: Hottest May on record with year to date temperature
and pay attention to this sort of thing;
Jason Box on Greenland’s Melt Season.
Betula is bonkers. He comes in here to copy-paste links to suggest that this blog is dead.
Who cares? He apparently does enough to keep coming back. What a loser.
As an aside, watch this space. I am writing a paper that I intend to submit to a top journal with a number of leading scientists on how blogs distort the evidence for climate change effects on biodiversity. My student and I haver some really amazing data and if we can get it where we hope to publish it, then it will complement the great work by Lewandowsky. I'm currently writing a lot of manuscripts on my own research, but this one has priority.
Look forward to seeing that Jeff. I don't know if you visit Greg Laden's blog but many including BBD have had a long running battle with a lawyer type who uses the handle RickA e.g. in Mark Steyn’s Latest Trick.
I don't know if you watched that Ted Cruz farce near the end of last year but Steyn showed himself to be an ignoramus like Rohrabacher but worse by being uncouth.
Christy and especially Curry sank further into the denial pit especial when responding to Senator Ed Markey, C&Cs body language was wonderful to behold. Curry and her, '...satellite data being the best data we have...'
What's equally hilarious Lionel is how Curry spoke on a video in 2013 in which she said that the alleged hiatus (since debunked by a pesky little thing called data) would probably last at least 20 more years or longer. The along came 2014, 2015, and in all likelihood, 2016.
IMHO she's dafer than a brush. Likes being the pinup girl for denial as her credibility ebbs away.
Just up on one of the Internet's most useful sites is news of a study which may point to the end Cretaceous extinction event being more rapid than some have thought:
New study finds evidence for a 'fast' dinosaur extinction
which could be ominous - knowing what is generally known and becoming clearer as science progresses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwYoXNrpojQ
And know, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tSTgUSU8hg
"now"...
Dead blogs can't spell.
Birch brain, the blog ain't dead if you keep checking in and posting on it. But you are so brazenly stupid that even you don't realize that.
And by the way, just to save your valuable tree-pruning time, nobody here looks at the video links you copy-paste. The only person rolling in laughter is you. That says a lot.
Great suggestion, above, that we revisit Curry's 2013 activities:
Curry participated in a paper:
M.G. Wyatt and J.A. Curry, “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century,” (Climate Dynamics, 2013).
The paper's PR provides some unintentional comedy:
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author.
Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.” Curry is the chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
...
“The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic,” Wyatt said. “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”
So what happens when you gin up some "research" then admit, "This paper stands in contrast to AR5", and then your conclusions turn out to be nonsense?
Yes - AR5 was right. Has Curry admitted this yet? Is she still complaining that factors other than her ability to conduct useful research have affected her poor publication record? Does she still wonder why the likes of Hansen and Mann get all the research grants instead of her?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/10/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_H…
#10 well for once my name ain't Nobody.
Dead blogs heads can’t spell.
Why the world is foxtrot-uniform-charlie-kilo-echo-delta is demonstrated by the bad behaviour of some who belong to a different class of animal. This article is just one from a blog I discovered that hits many such nails on the head.
"Betula is bonkers. He comes in here to copy-paste links to suggest that this blog is dead. "
And thereby proving it isn't.
Which is extremely bonkers.
Something Specials,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2oXzrnti4
Love the Specials.
Less lovely is today's message from Joanne Codling:
"Whereas coal companies sell a product that most of the world wants and cheaper than most of the competition, the renewables/ electric car / carbon market depend entirely on the existence of a Grand Global Weather Scare."
I don't know what Codling (what an unfortunate name for one who engages in whackery cod in one hand ling in the other perhaps) is on but her doctor really should advise her to stop.
I guess it is tough to quit when in thrall of the big coal queen of Oz.
Here lies Deltoid...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0I4mTEdAf8
What I notice on here is how the deniers like to copy each other. GSW is now copying what Betula does, while Olaus liked copying anyone - Betula, Jonas etc. - who said things he liked.
The only static these days in their brains. And lots of it. None of these posts are remotely funny, except to themselves.
Well, "liked" is probably a bit generous to the nutjob. "Disagreed with AGW" is probably closer to the truth.
"Less lovely is today’s message from Joanne Codling"
Less correct is that message. Since Wind is CHEAPER than coal, produces something everyone wants AND DOESN'T PRODUCE STUFF PEOPLE DON'T WANT, coal depends on the "NEW WORLD ORDER STEALING YOUR SOULS" scare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
Your links are crap, Betula.
Here is a fantastic song with a decent video to go with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouWQ25O-Mcg
Uh oh!
Britain/UK has voted to leave?????
#27, yes, apparently humanity finds it time to regress into fascism once more.
Uh, nope, Stupid, a third of the UK wanted to leave.
A third didn't care. A third didn't want to leave.
So only a third of the UK got their way.
Not really democratic, is it. Not really as if the majority got their voice heard, is it.
But at least the same "arguments" used by exit can be used to get democracy back into the UK and stop those whitehall politicians deciding everything for us.
Scotland first.
Probably NI rejoining back to their original borders OF THEIR ISLAND REALM and having home rule rather than dictat of those unelected bureaucrats at whitehall,
Then Wales.
Hpefully Cornwall will finally get their independence.
And, each country now being of only a few millions rather than tens of millions, the voice of the voter will actually matter again.
TPP is going to be scrapped, then. As is the copyright laws and all the laws currently on the books can be scrapped and rewritten so we can get rid of the bureaucrat thicket of regulations that we, the people of this country, did not get any say in.
And finally we will be able to dictate to the moneygrabbing shopkeepers what they can do with OUR money they took from us!
Because, you see, nothing was argued for the borders to be drawn around the UK, merely that we "had to protect our sovereignty" (which, deriving from our sovereign, the Queen, ensures her continued employment anyway, right?), and nothing was made of the fact that we pay Europe but get something back, it was all that WE PAID THEM!!!! Well, I pays the shopkeeper. I should therefore, like with the brexiteers position on EU payments, get to say what happens to it.
And I should get to see the accounts signed off, right?
The UK parliament that comes up next is going to have some troubles too, what with me not getting a say in how my taxes are spent once they've been collected. Yes, yes, yes, you claim I get to vote for what party and they decide, so my voice is "partly" involved and a small voice, but, hell, our voice in Europe as part of the EU wasn't countable as us having a say in what happens to "our" money. No, don't give me that "I get to decide how other people's money is spent by the elected government", because it didn't matter that the rest of the EU spent more than the UK and we got to decide how THEIR money was spent and got to control THEIR borders as well as ours by our membership.
If it didn't count then, it doesn't now.
But Stupid here really doesn't understand, all they have is "the feels".
Hey Wow, let's reunite Ireland first ;)
So Wow is a damned brit. Shut up, asshole
#29 "Cornwall "
Well, they got an alliance goin!
TTIP is a disaster and should be scrapped; its essentially aimed at looking after the interests of the US corporate lobby anyway. NAFTA has been an unmitigated disaster for many areas of the continent and has created economic no-go zones. My worry is that the right wing clots who backed Brexit will simply negotiate terms for TTIP that will be even better for corporations.
Highly likely if Marine le Pen gets her way. I bet she tore the legs off her dolls when a kid.
2nd referendum anyone? After all Farage wanted one if there was a 52/48 split. Nearly 3.5 million sig's at last look, yes I know about the attempts to void it.
Independence from the bloated and corrupt machinery of EU government = fascism.
Hey-ho.
*Real* fascism is, as Jeff explains, our leaders becoming ever more divorced from their constituencies and enacting laws at the behest of lobbyists with deep pockets.
The "Leave" vote is effectively a vote for greater engagement between the people and the people who should be serving them through leadership.
If you don't want Marine LePen or Norbert Hofer gaining power and influence, find out who is voting for them and stop ignoring their needs and desires. It is really very simple.
Alternatively, if you want a fascist-led revolution, keep alienating the electorate with globalised policies.
Id suggest only a dickhead feels alienated
by globalised policies in the first place.
Take policy to prevent man made global warming is the
first to come to mind.
Montreal proticol is the second.
Agreements about landmines and chemical weapons.
Ooooooh they make me feel sooo alienated!
Totally agree with you Craig. The leave vote is exactly that. The problem is that the people who should be serving them (the politicians) and who were the most vehement Brexit promoters - Farage, Johnson, Gove, etc - are far right and this raises questions. Those on the far end of the political right habitually support deregulated economies to increase the power of the private sector and thus which reduce policies that protect the interests of the poor and of the environment. Therein lies the rub. The EU Charter, as it is currently constructed, needs to be essentially rewritten, as it serves the interests of a ruling elite first and foremost, leaving crumbs for the rest. This is why the devil is in the details: the vote split both the left and right because its unclear which path an independent UK will take. The Brexit voters generally pushed for independence t be governed more compassionately, but this is not what they may get.
Well maybe, and I agree with your general line of argument, but we should also look at why some feel so aggrieved. Sure underlying things is a sense of powerlessness in the face of falling job security and living conditions but this is being turned into something else by the worst elements of the media, which is most of it.
In the weeks running up to the vote I have been in 'discussion' on FB with old greybeards once in my line of work, military aviation and especially the maritime component.
Having put environmental protections forward and the need for coherent cross border efforts to combat climate change, both likely to be severely impacted by English insularity, I was not at all surprised to get the old contrarian arguments about that latter thrown back at me. Clear indications that such as The Telegraph and The Mail on Sunday were involved, I could all but hear the voice of David Rose.
Many just don't get the fragmentation of the union bit.
An FB post of an image of F4 Phantoms on the deck of HMS Ark Royal (of which I was once a part) prompted me to observe that the national insignia on display there, the familiar red-white-blue roundel will soon have to be replaced. This was followed by the response 'I don't follow' from another.
I replied, 'We won't need the blue [name] if that is what you are not following'
then a friendly remarked, 'No Scotland'.
then some incoming fire 'NOT POLITIC GENTLEMEN'
to which I replied, 'I was only making an observation'
Of course the air force insignia of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are based upon the same design with red nationally relevant shapes replacing the simple filled circle. Will they change too?
Elsewhere on FB a posting of an image of the Union Flag upside down at half mast drew a response, 'Shame it isn't the right way up'. Clearly a lack of knowledge about this being a signal of distress with the flag itself under threat except for the history books.
Some people are really obtuse.
#35 - " find out who is voting for them and stop ignoring their needs and desires."
Old white men with too many villa's. And fascists. Exactly like back then, you know.
Real fascism is the most corporate system there is. So if Jeff is right about the structure of the EU, the Brexit voters choose for that same structure but FAR worse.
Real fascism is obsessed with violence, so Farage said 'not a shot fired' both expressing some sort of dissapointment and trampling over the body of parlementarian that was shot by one of his fascists.
Real fascism is opportunistic. So the fascists campaigned re the annual 350 million euro EU dues to go to the NHS and mere fucking HOURS after the verdict retreated that idea with Farage actually denying he ever said it (but alas, video evidence abound and some of us have memories that fucking function).
Now, Craig, you understand why the neonazis of Europe are the prime forces behind this regression to a Europe of 1913 or 1937.
You understand.
I will not have 'wir haven es nicht gewusst' from anyone, see.
Not even from those duped voters - millions of them - who said 'we didn't mean it, we only wanted to protest'. Their holes should be smacked shut. No democracy for those who can't handle it.
#34, no.
This was a non-binding referendum.
So the British parliament can simply pretend it doesn't exist. More realistically (and democratically) it could, and should, vote.
'... but we should also look at why some feel so aggrieved.'
Because the Daily Fail told them to be.
Corporations love racism, it distracts the plebs from their corruptions.
cRR, the problem is that the EU can at least partially blame itself for this. Too many of the laws and tenets of the EU charter were written by right wing idealogues like Fritz Bolkestein and supported by the banks. The EU has accepted TTIP and was negotiating its terms. Merkel and other EU leaders were nowhere to be seen during the campaign. And the fact that despised and disgraced former politicians like war criminal Tony Blair waded in on the pro-EU side did not help.
Where Craig is wrong is to believe that the voters in the UK were rejecting EU governance to be governed by an elected government at home. Many of the voters are so stupid that they don't know a thing about electoral politics; this is the price for living in a managed democracy. Given that it was the older UK voters who shifted the balance in favor of Brexit, one has to ask why? Its simple. Fear. And the corporate/state media play a large role in that. The fear is that their beloved Blighty will be overrun with immigrants. Its totally irrational, but this is how the simple minded think. And the media plays right into it, just like it odes here in the Netherlands. How else can we account for the rise and popularity of Geert Wilders, one of the most despicable human beings alive? Play the fear card, drive it home ritually and endlessly and it works every time. Wilders makes every problem we face in society the fault of ethnic minorities and immigrants, and almost exclusively Muslims. And there are enough single-brain celled people out there who believe it. They ignore the real threats to our future - unlimited corporate expansion and power and climate change - and scapegoat others for the woes we are facing.
My take is that a Labor government in the UK under Corbyn will restore humanity in politics and prioritize the major issues. The problem is that the Brexit camp come largely from the far right, as they do in countries across Europe. And these people are not remotely interested in humane and compassionate policies that benefit everyone but in furthering the shackles of corporate power, while continuing to scapegoat minorities for the resulting chaos. In this way we are descending into anarchy. The great unraveling is underway.
If he now gets a chance. My take is that many opposition and on his own side cannot find any skeletons to twist his arm with, far to sensible to stick a sensitive part of his anatomy in a hogs face, soused or otherwise.
I did wonder if Cameron's peccadillo (others may use a different word) was pushed by elements of the media ready to cast him in a worse light. Dodgy Dave as he became known was also a liability.
Only one Carbyn facet has me pondering and that is his biological relationship with Piers.
Ah! Corbyn!
cRR writes off people whose opinions he disagrees with as being nazis.
And *that* is precisely why Brexit won - a minority elite that has nothing but contempt for the ideas of representation and pluralism of opinions.
The events of the 1920s that eventually led to electoral win for the German Nazi party hinged on the Communists' failure to join a Left-Centre coalition in order to keep the Nazis at bay.
Had the Communists' strategy of social dis-cohesion and violence succeeded (as it did for the Nazis), there is no reason to suppose that a Communist regime in 1930s Germany would have been any less bloody than the Nazi regime was. In fact, given Stalin out-murdered Hitler by a country mile, Europe was perhaps fortunate that Germany didn't fall to the Communists or things would probably have been very, very much worse.
Current EU events have nothing to do with the any flavor of extremism and everything to do with maladministration and misgovernance.
Had Corbyn championed Brexit, for example, Farage wouldn't now be enjoying the limelight.
The major parties have *gifted* that limelight to the extremists because they have chosen not the path of representation, but the path of molly-coddling a minority elite.
Brexit also won because of what I saidf yesterday: FEAR, driven by our corporate state media and its lurid stories of us being overrun with immigrants. Craig, you give the British electorate too much credit. Many, if not most of them, can't even chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time. They swallow racist Islamophobia whole.
As for Corbyn, if he'd championed Brexit, he's have been booted out as Labour leader. Already the knives are out amongst clowns like Bomber Hillary Benn and others who are critical of Corbyn because he wasn't Pro-remain strongly enough. Thus, his limelight would have been as ex-leader of the Party. Wisely, he chose the best course to remain.
'The problem is that the Brexit camp come largely from the far right, as they do in countries across Europe. And these people are not remotely interested in humane and compassionate policies that benefit everyone but in furthering the shackles of corporate power, while continuing to scapegoat minorities for the resulting chaos.'
For this the EU cannot be blamed - it was (and still is) a solution.
Also the trend to far right nationalism is not a European prerogative but a global development, at least in part a response to 'globalization'.
A Brexit for the reasons Jeff mentions would have been pulled by the left, not by the fascists.
#45, in the light of the rest of your post this contradicts: "The major parties have *gifted* that limelight to the extremists because they have chosen not the path of representation, but the path of molly-coddling a minority elite." "Current EU events have nothing to do with the any flavor of extremism "
All those collective statements by the Leave campaigners had the fascist flavour. Nationalism, the noise on 'sovereignty', pattriotism - all the exact same thing. Corporate, opportunistic, violent and xenophobe.
If General Samsonov listened to his batallion commander Berlin would have been reached by his army in September '14; there and then WW I would have ended, there would never have been the Weimar disaster or the 'Peace' of Versailles that effected the nazis to power.
This is a butterfly effect world.
There is simply no reason to assume communism in Europe would have been as deadly as it was in China or Russia - comparison fails.
In France where the communist party was strongest, extreme right remained the most dangerous and destabilizing element. It was not a communist who took shots at de Gaulle.
"My worry is that the right wing clots who backed Brexit will simply negotiate terms for TTIP that will be even better for corporations."
Of COURSE they will. Remember, a points based system means that when demand for a certain workforce arises, instead of getting better pay, they will just import workers. The idiots who wish to blame "foreigners" for their troubles weren't told that, and don't care to work it out for themselves: this makes them feel that they're "doing something".
You know, just like politicians, which we (and the same morons above) complain about.
Look at the Brexiter politicians: indignant that they're being TOLD what to do. That ain't why they got into politics! And look at the Labour party MPs, so indignant that the people didn't agree with them, they're blaming their leader for not making the voters vote to stay!
Of course, Corbyn is ineffective. Much the same as Bernie. And for the same reason: they're not "playing ball" with power and money. So they're not given any screen time. Despite Farrage and Mad Monckfish being given huge screentime. After all, both are well up for making government less intrusive in "private" industry. Not the enforcing the benefits for the industries, mind, that has to be ramped up for the "job creators".
Funny thing: NO business "creates jobs" unless there's more money in it. And where does that money come from? Customers. Of course, that doesn't fit with neo conservative and modern "capitalist" theory.
"Independence from the bloated and corrupt machinery of EU government = fascism.
Hey-ho."
Aaaaw, Craig. So it "must" be that way round, eh? Can't be Facist: "independence from the bloated and corrupt machinery of EU government".
And we must NEVER question whether it's bloated or corrupt. That MUST be taken as a matter of faith!
But tell me, isn't the Westminster government ALSO bloated and corrupt?
If not, how do you tell?
"cRR, the problem is that the EU can at least partially blame itself for this. Too many of the laws and tenets of the EU charter were written by right wing idealogues like Fritz Bolkestein and supported by the banks"
Moreover, the EU declaration on human rights was brought in by the UK government and based almost entirely on the legistlation *IN THE UK AT THE TIME*.
Yes, that's right, brexiters, OUR law was brought down heavily on EVERYONE ELSE in the EU.
Better, because it was brought in by the UK when in charge (it's a rota), it has been "conveniently" forgotten when used against what the UK government wanted to do.
Just like the times when the UK government was protected by the EU courts from interference by the EU council recently. Barely a mention, and NOTHING about thanking them for protecting us.
Not "on message".
"cRR writes off people whose opinions he disagrees with as being nazis."
Or he writes off the nazi propaganda's PR spin.
Nah, must be YOUR way round, right? Can't be any other.
Brexit LOST it. They won more votes because enough people had already decided to leave. Whinging about "scare tactics" only worked on those already on the "leave" side as comforting blankets to hide their heads under. After all, "We have 50 murderers and terrorists we can't deport" wasn't scare tactics at all! Please don't think that we arrest and jail terrorists and murderers, not deport them. At least not since Australia gained independence... Neither was "THOSE RAPES WILL HAPPEN HERE IF WE DON'T LEAVE THE EU!!!!" after the rapes in Brussels (or Belgium, can't remember precisely). Totally not scare tactics. That's what BAD people do when they've nothing to use rationally, and OF COURSE the brexiters weren't BAD people. No sireee...
" trampling over the body of parlementarian that was shot by one of his fascists. "
And boy did they whinge when it was pointed out to them. I'm wondering when we're going to bite the bullet and call it a terrorist attack. No frigging reason why it isn't. 'cept he's white and/or not muslim, so the majority can see some similarity between them and him.
Brexit were about as responsible for it as Insane Imams are responsible for the muslim terrorists blowing people up. And a hell of a lot less than british muslims are responsible for it.
Though the muslims (indeed all the faithful, of all faiths) must admit some culpability for it: if belief is considered by anyone "sufficient proof" of a claim, then the insane morons can find "justification" for their sufficient proof God Wants Them To Do It.
"The fear is that their beloved Blighty will be overrun with immigrants. Its totally irrational, but this is how the simple minded think. "
Not simple minded. Overworked and stressed. they don't have TIME to consider, they don't have the ENERGY to think hard about it. And they're told what to do and have been, for the past 60 years or so, indoctrinated that they're supposed to obey.
Why, for example, are the wealthy called "job creators"? Because we have to beg them for a job. And accept whatever they give us. And we're not allowed anything else.
Moreover, in the past 40+ "Left" has been a dirty word. in the 50s and 60s the "Right" was a dirty word. But today we hear how some thousands of people weren't "the left" but "Extreme Left", and therefore not really to be considered.
Yet the far right gets plenty of screen time. And attempt to deride farage or other far right people is (as you can see here with craigs' posts) is seen as a priori proof of the detractos wrongness.
We're only allowed a centrist government, and, much like is jocularly referred to about "don't insult the muslims, we're not stupid, y'know", we also don't insult the right. For the same reason. Both think it right and even holy to use deadly violence against "the bad guys". And are 100% willing to find a reason to consider someone who disagrees or even hates them as *being* bad guys.
"... after the rapes in Brussels (or Belgium, can’t remember precisely)."
Welcome to Europe, Wow... Brussels is the capital of Belgium (and the main seat of the EU), and I live in a completely different country called Holland in a city a distant 2.5 hours drive from that Brussels..
Alleged mass rapes were in Cologne/Germany and that story was a big hoax. And a dangerous one.
'I’m wondering when we’re going to bite the bullet and call it a terrorist attack.'
The prosecution is explicitly moving forward with that interpretation: terrorist attack.
A detail on August 1914, if Samsonov listened, Berlin would have been reached by the Russian army by September, and there wouldn't have been a Russian Revolution (though turmoil, yes, but that was going on for 60 years already).
Juncker just made a dangerous mistake.
Want to exclude the national parliaments of the EU countries wrt signing CETA (and perhaps later TTIP).
This is recipe for the end. It means not only the fascists will kill the EU. It means the fascists will assemble some very scary majorities behind them. It means the 1930's (which are copied in yet another way: the pre-emptive suicide of socialist parties in the face of rising fascism).
"As for Corbyn, if he’d championed Brexit, he’s have been booted out as Labour leader. Already the knives are out amongst clowns like Bomber Hillary Benn and others who are critical of Corbyn because he wasn’t Pro-remain strongly enough."
That is mismanagement.
Look at how the Australian government managed our referendum on a Republic: the government of the day chose two of its members to be the opposing leaders for the two options.
The referendum thus stood outside the usual Left v. Right, Lib v. Lab politics.
Its result didn't result in anybody getting out the knives to purge their own party of people who supported the "wrong team".
So instead of managing the referendum properly like this, the major parties gifted the "Leave" campaign to any/all the usual nutters. And the nutters won. They won a moral and political victory that is only theirs because the major parties refused to run the question in a sensible way.
"Alleged mass rapes were in Cologne/Germany and that story was a big hoax. "
OK, I think we already knew the religidiots never had a monopoly on irrational belief.
Good points Craig Thomas.
There do seem to be a lot of sore losers and bad sports around atm.
If the stay campaign was badly managed - then it was badly managed.
A lesson learned perhaps?
Perhaps not?
'Alleged mass rapes were in Cologne/Germany and that story was a big hoax.' - to which Craig made some word salad remark. I guess he checked around for convictions and stuff and didn't find anything at all, because they aren't there so they will just HAVE to be there, huh Craig.
No Remko, Craig merely believes everything the corporate/state media tells him - if at least it fits in with his pre-determined views. We were told by our wonderful corporate/state media that Iraq had WMDs - it was a slam dunk - and this propaganda ostensibly based on 'intelligence' released by our wonderful and honest (guffaw) intelligence agencies and other 'official sources' was swallowed hook, line and sinker by our 'unbiased' media. Of course it was done to soften up opposition to an illegal war which had immense benefits if performed for many of opur defense and industry businesses, which in turn either own or advertise in the media. It comes full circle. Right now Islam is the religion of the month/year/decade to bash. Along with Russia, of course, the current villain in just about everything else.
Awhile back I pondered on who may have been behind the push of Cameron's Bullingdon Club — Pigs Mouth revelation. To be sure it was supposedly in a book from Lord Ashcroft (Wiki reveals that he was once on the dole) but now could well have been pushed by he who was politicking in the background. After all Chief Whips tend to know where the skeletons are buried and Gove an ex-journalist would likely have maintained undercover links with elements of the media.
Maybe the answer has just been revealed by the man who did not wish to be king putting his wig into the ring to become Master of Commons.
I don’t like linking to the Torygraph but that organ has described the fiendish plot by one with now clearly revealed overweening ambition to become PM despite all utterances to the contrary. This ‘snake in the grass’, or ‘Brutus, now claims that he only wishes to be Prime Minister to ‘change the country’, which if he does make it to PM he will but not for the better. This despite outrageous claims by Dominic Raab WRT Gove’s record with education (an area in which I have qualifications and had professional experience), Raab being another who swapped allegence.
Amongst the contenders now is another danger, Andrea Leadsom a former banker and fund manager currently Energy Minister, this despite conflicts of interest The Energy Minister, Her Brother-in-Law, His Hedge Fund and the Oil Investments
One thing is clear if Gove is on your side then make sure ‘this piece of work’ is in front when you go over the top.
I may be disappeared from commentary in the not too distant future but so be it.
"Alleged mass rapes were in Cologne/Germany and that story was a big hoax. And a dangerous one."
Well, I neither knew nor care: it was a scare that I only heard from the Brexiters.
Who totally weren't running scare tactics, nosiree!
PS I'm in Europe. The UK is still in it, and not being in the EU doesn't make it migrate to a new continent.
It was highly amusing, in a "I coulda toldya that" way, when the Brexiters, having won (when they thought they didn't have to, therefore all their claims were "safe" as being mere words, not having to risk meeting reality), said that they never said that the 350m would go to the NHS.
Backed REAL quick off their rhetoric when they won.
Indeed, this would be why Bojo bowed out: he didn't expect to win, but thought he'd get pundit points for talking his mouth off without risk. He's dropped the situation he's helped dropped us in like it was a runny turd.
"That is mismanagement."
No it isn't.
There weren't any reasons to leave. But they "felt" like "reasons". The only failure was playing their game and letting the brexit team whinge about "negativity" (which obviously telling everyone the bad things about the EU wasn't right?) and whine about "scare tactics" instead of asking what, precisely, were their reasons.
"Soverignty"? Same reason for Scotland to leave. They never were required to explain WHY the UK borders were "right".
"Faceless Bureaucrats"? Same thing with Westminster. Still content free bollocks.
"We want a democracy!", well the UK is at least an order of magnitude too big for democracy to win. See how a third of people were ignored.
No, the mismanagement were by the MPs incensed that the people weren't just letting themselves be told what to vote, and that gave the moronic rightwing the opportunity to say what they thought.
Of course, those rightwingers won't change their mind, either, they'll insist that the voters must toe the line.
And this written shortly after Cameron's announcement to quit puts it well:
From the Guardian's comments section:
"If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign."
This link from reddit is now missing its mark, the victim of a silly comments systems, but the above should be there somewhere, but many 'fun comments' (if you like seeing others with similar views describe the 'clusterfuck' that Cameron has visited on the country, Europe and the World) there.
Of course Gove is still up and not yet destroyed politically - being to willy for that.
Well, Cameron, too, got out because the position is a poisoned cup. If it hadn't worked, it would be blamed on his sabotage, if it worked, there would still be problems, and the working bits lauded as the result of the "hard work" of the Brexiters, the failures, the scurrilous work of Cameron.
IMO we've already had most of the downside, jumping back in and not trying at all would only leave us open to the same bollocks next time. Give it a go, and like the USA under Trump, the results would tell us exactly what we deserved.
Hell, it may be fine, but it won't for a few years at least, and we've already buggered our economy up as much as the remaining adjustment holds, so it's pointless to try anything other than tell the brexiters to get the hell on with it, and stop fannying about.
"being to willy for that."
You may want to use one fewer l in that statement.
Unless you're saying Gove is a prick... :-)
Never entered my head Wow, although Lineker had similar thoughts about Farage. :-)
Amusing, if the implications were not so dire, article on Brexit and Tory leadership contest massacre:
Michael Gove isn't driven only by personal ambition – he's driven by his wife's personal ambition.
Interesting job that Lady Mac' had, get yourself published into No10.
How deluded would you have to choose to be in order to label the Cologne rape-spree a "hoax"?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/21/revealed-full-list-of-1049-v…
Mainstream islamic culture, in the form of the Grand Mufti of Australia, explains that it's the victims' fault:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/26/australia.marktran
""If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [the headdress worn by some Muslim women], no problem would have occurred."
I re-iterate - that is mainstream islam talking.
This particular gang having been found in a court of law to have been responsible for racist hate crimes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes
Islam has a problem. Emulating the ostrich won't solve it.
In fact, Islam-apologism will continue to drive people into the arms of the Farages of this world.
#71, aha, so Judaism-apologism drove people into the arms of the Hitlers of this world? It would drive you into Hitler's arms? Please convince me it would not (protip: u can't).
Yes, same thing.
Except Farage first helped create the wreck then ran away.
'Islam has a problem.' and it is christianity :D :D
Where and when were the Jews doing rapes in pre-Hitler Germany?
"Islam has a problem"
And Christianity doesn't?! Stop scapegoating one religion and giving others with even worse historical records a bye.
#74 - read 'Der Stürmer', there's archive online.
Btw, denying Jews ever rape is denying their humanity. Careful, there.
Good American Christians are pro-life (anti-abortion) and rant about the second amendment very pro NRA. They also provide false balance WRT human rights of whites to other races castigate Hilary Clinton (who I cannot wholly defend) for some issue over Benghazi and deride with very nasty propaganda, some from 'Allen West Republic'. I have these latter pushed under my nose on FB all the time by somebody I once respected.
They also think Trump is the man!
Now I know for sure that the difference between religious zealots and those who understand evolution and consider god an invention of humans is intelligence. IOW Intelligent Design is an oxymoron.
Of course I could be suffering from DK syndrome.
Correction, I was distracted,
They [American Christians] also provide false balance WRT human rights of whites to other races castigate Hilary Clinton (who I cannot wholly defend) for some issue over Benghazi and deride with very nasty propaganda, some from ‘Allen West Republic’, any Democrat. They also dismiss those who disagree with them as sad liberals. They don't have the intelligence to appreciate that this whole left - right thing is so last century and no longer a useful way of looking at the political world. It is that drip, drip, drip of media applied poison that infects certain elements of society, those with too narrow, or shallow, an education.
A women in the UK has just been arrested for urinating on a war memorial. The same people who voted for Brexit are now calling for stiff punishment. I pointed out well so she should be punished and than immigrants show more respect than this native of Essex. How long before I have to 'duck' below the invective put in my direction?
Jeff Harvey
July 4, 2016
“Islam has a problem”
And Christianity doesn’t?
a. whataboutism is embarrassing
b. Equating christianity with islam is even dumber. christianity has led us to our modern democratic secular civilisation. Christian values underpin our welfare state, our systems of socialised medicine and education, our pluralism and form the background for how we think civilisation should work. Islam on the other hand is a massive pile of poo. Islamic values are abhorrent to modern civilised human beings which is why Islam generates most of the world's refugees, most of whom dream of being able to flee to a christian country where respect for human rights, basic freedoms and social justice are the norm.
Craig, take off your blinders. Islam has not generated most of the world's refugees; western bombs have done that. The Iraq war ostensibly destroyed the country, created ISIL in its vacuum, and the bombing and subsequent destruction of Libya added to the mess. Christian nations - and I focus on the USA here - have foreign policy records that have created so much carnage as to make ISIL and Al Queda look like nothing more than lethal fleas. Bush claimed he invaded Iraq because his Christian God told him to do so; we all know the results of that illegal invasion.
Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with the advances in human civilization that you talk about. If we tally up the death toll form adherents of various religions, Christianity comes near the top of the pile, from the destruction wrought in Alexandria that effectively ended the Roman empire and brought on the dark ages through the crusades to the present day. I am not absolving Islam; I am simply stating the facts that all religions are abhorrent.
You are an intelligent guy who for some reason carries a massive chip on their shoulder. Your contributions to discussions about climate change, incidentally largely brought about by our over-consumptive capitalist systems which are Christian-based, are excellent. But when you wade into religion your arguments dissolve into silly vacuous biased/prejudiced mud slinging.
'christianity has led us to our modern democratic secular civilisation.'
Number 10. The Larch.
The infamous, 'Mission Accomplished' which, typically, those I categorised in #77 & #78 believe made America safer.
Well reality is very different. I have long admired the reporting of BBC's Jeremy Bowen who's book 'Six Days' [1] I read over a decade ago and which is on my book shelf still. Bowen recently nailed the situation and its cause in a broadcast.
Once again, something with very recent echoes in the UK, the politicians in the US and UK did not have a plan once the dead was done and chaos ensued which cost lives.
Sobering, as is the narrative in his 'Six Days' with descriptions Israeli bulldozing of Palestinians in their homes. Of course Palestinians have retaliated but what would you do if another group decided to camp on your ground in multiple places and slowly link them up with fortified walls so as to make every day life impossible. Ill, sick and injured people being held up at Israeli checkpoints all this within a territory allotted by international treaty to the Palestinians.
Some will doubtless make out that the Palestinians are as responsible for ongoing conflict as Israel. The facts tell a different story. There are many other sites with similar information that could be turned up by using e.g. 'Israeli Violations of U.N. Security Council Resolutions'.
Now I have nothing in particular against Israelis. indeed I once had correspondence with an ex FAA (RN) Israeli who was amongst the children evacuated from Austria when Germany invaded at the start of WW2. There landing in Palestine was delayed by their vessel being intercepted by Royal Navy destroyers. When they did get ashore, as they were led away under guard the r4eception from the Palestinians was distinctly hostile with spitting, hitting and kicking being prevalent. All this I read in a copy of his autobiography, he later became a high ranking officer, which he sent me after I had obtained and mailed him a copy of a FAA related book which he wanted.
Also, I still have a copy here of a weekend newspaper supplement which carried the stories of Israeli military personnel who quit the service being uncomfortable with Israel's occupation policies and actions.
[1] 'Six Days' by Jeremy Bowen
One word cropped up so often in the reading associated with the topic that I misused it, sorry.
Once again, something with very recent echoes in the UK, the politicians in the US and UK did not have a plan once the deed was done and chaos...
"How deluded would you have to choose to be in order to label the Cologne rape-spree a “hoax”?"
How deluded to ignore that that was a SCARE TACTIC used by the brexiters. You know, that tactic that so many of the retard exiters were whinging about being done "only" by the "remain" campaign.
None so blind as will not see.
PS I take it that this is the same sort of "non hoax" as the "There are no-go areas in the UK for non muslims, and they own all of Birmingham, the police are afraid to go there!" not-at-all-a-lie?
"Except Farage first helped create the wreck then ran away."
Didn't run away from the paying job, though, did he?
"Where and when were the Jews doing rapes in pre-Hitler Germany?"
Where were the muslims doing rapes in pre-Farage UK?
"a. whataboutism is embarrassing"
So don't engage in it. YOU started that, bud.
"b. Equating christianity with islam is even dumber."
Yeah, christianity is even worse. Luckily most countries that ascribed to the same toxic christianity have been overtaken by secular governance and have been disallowed the overt power to do this in most of the countries you know about.
However, please go visit the Congo or other African christian districts and see the torture and murder of women men and children who are heretics (or even just homosexual). Yes, that's right, craigie, christians are STILL burning witches under the name of god.
Stop pretending that christianity consists only of those you consider christian and muslims consist of anyone you don't identify with.
‘christianity has led us to our modern democratic secular civilisation.’
The ABANDONMENT of religion has led to our modern democratic secular civilisation.
Go read up on the fucking enligtenment period, moron.
Here you are Craig, what those nice Christian people let makes happen: Doctors could be jailed for reporting abuse of asylum seekers
H/T Sou at HotWhopper
If this is not crimes against humanity I don't know what is.
Maybe the International Criminal Court should take action.
With the CSIRO debacle, Lamar Smith's dangerous climate witch hunts, Brexit and the strange rise of Trump that even Stephen Hawking cannot explain (he was against Brexit it too) the world is edging towards disaster. I have a daughter with four sons and another with three (four grandsons in all), will they become cannon fodder in the not too distant future? My sense of history gives me grave concern.
#89, hear, hear.
Yes, sense of history. And of general principles underlying it.
If Islam is such a violent religion, how come we haven't been at war with them for centuries?
Good grief Lionel A and WOW!
The world is edging towards disaster?????
Because of things like Brexit, a change of focus at CSIRO and Donald Trump????
Seriously?
Most of that is either old news or will be in a short timeframe.
And I can't see where Craig claimed that the Christian religion is purer than the driven snow?
If he had claimed that, then his comment @#79 would have deserved a rebuke.
What he pointed out was that the rise and success of democratic societies has a common denominator in terms of Christian values that is not replicated in societies based on Islam.
I agree that all religions, definitely including Christianity, have much to answer for, but Craig's observation is nonetheless valid.
Yes seriously. As the demagogues and anti-science brigade flex their muscles the chances of humans rolling out effective measures to combat a host of issues fades, for a number of connected reasons, largely due to the dumbing down of society via impoverishing education and false balance media. At a time when science disseminates more knowledge and at a faster rate than ever before the numbers of those in governments with a graduate science background are fewer. Science and mathematics can be difficult, or seen as difficult (often because of poor quality teaching) so many chose the softer options in media, humanities and law. The US is at or near the bottom of the pile in this respect and I doubt Australia is doing much better.
Certainly ideologues in the UK, e.g. those who like running others through with sharp implements even if only tactics, have also had a run at fracturing and disrupting educational practices.
This problem is tackled by Shawn Otto in his 'The War On Science: Who's Waging it Why it Matters What We can do About it' , which I agree is a must read.
Your opening 'Good grief' is a symptom of this disease, a disease which robs little grey cells of their ability to function.
Bringing up the Deltoid blog I noted the post counter had incremented by 1 and instantly I though, one of our trolls has dropped by - you are so predictable.
Here is just one example of environmental degradation that will bite us in the fundament:
Australia's vast kelp forests devastated by marine heatwave, study reveals.
Shawn Otto in his book cited up-thread at #92 encapsulates the problem thus, page 5:
Shawn Otto had a list of bullet pointed questions that should be put to political candidates (also incumbents) in this article and further expanded in the book also from page 5 which begins:
Now stop playing the simpleton Stu, or maybe it is not playing for you really are as dumb as you come across.
"What he pointed out was that the rise and success of democratic societies has a common denominator in terms of Christian values"
..which is total bullshit. Christian values? Like occurred in Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq and Libya under millions of tons of U.S. ordnance that blew people to bits in their millions and left total and utter wreckage and devastation? There are countless other examples. Its just that like many others, you tend to ignore them.
Stu2, we know you're as deep as a puddle, but sometimes the shallowness of your nonsense even staggers me. Then you question the clearly obvious and factual statement that the world is heading for disaster. As Noam Chomsky explains with clarity in his latest book, 'Who Rules the World', there are twin threats to our survival: environmental destruction and nuclear war. Both are profoundly serious threats that we are heading towards, with similar outcomes: the virtual extinction of the human species. Our current dominant socio-economic systems, along with our tribal mentality, exacerbate these threats. Your opinions are so lightweight as to be shocking. And you claim to be friends with academics, when you espouse the crap that you do here. Perhaps that says as much about them as it does about you.
Whether you like it or not, and you clearly don't, Craig did not claim that Christianity was purer than the driven snow.
If he had claimed that, he would deserve to be rebuked.
His comment @#79 is valid.
"Christian values underpin our welfare state, our systems of socialised medicine and education, our pluralism and form the background for how we think civilisation should work."
While you can perhaps reasonably object to him calling Islam values "a pile of poo", it doesn't change the point he was making.
I totally agree that religions, most definitely including Christianity, have much to answer for.
Craig was talking about underpinning values.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/11/massive-mangrove-di…
Cheers.
'The world is edging towards disaster?????'
No, plunging into.
And I will use you as food.
"Craig was talking about underpinning values"
Kindergarten level discourse. Easily debunked, but not really worth my time here. Islam has underpinning values too that are every bit as apparently noble as Christian ones. Both have been twisted and distorted by those promoting their own agendas. If we look at the sordid record of US foreign policy alone, in a nation John Winthrop said was 'ordained by God' and akin to a 'city on a hill', then this blows Craig's and Stu2's argument to smithereens. The notion of a Christian God has been used to justify countless acts of state violence and mass murder. Given the technolkogical disparities, one can easily argue that Christianity has much more blood on its hands. Winthrop, like others who came after him, used Christianity to demonize native Americans and to pave the way for the genocide that was waged against them. So please, Stu2, don't come in here throwing in your 2 cents worth of wisdom. Save yourself the time.
Jeff,
Once again.
No one, including Craig, claimed that any religion is purer than than the driven snow.
Are you claiming that Islam has delivered better civil societies than Christianity?
'Are you claiming that Islam has delivered better civil societies than Christianity?'
I would.
Whereas the better of the societies in the christian world were bitterly fought against and over christianity.
In some parts even with the inspiration of the Ottoman Empire's freedom of religion, ethnicity, tolerance and of course the science (that started our Renaissance).
"The world is edging towards disaster?????
Because of things like Brexit, a change of focus at CSIRO and Donald Trump????
Seriously?"
For a bunch always whinging on aabout "NWO" or "Global Conspiracy" and how the civilised world will end if we do ANYTHING about climate change before it's actually a catastrophe, I just have to ask: Seriously?????
“What he pointed out was that the rise and success of democratic societies has a common denominator in terms of Christian values”
WHAT "Christian Values"???? Remember, the three religions believe in the samen goddamned god, it's just which testaments they adhere to is different.
Jewish: Old Testament (The testament according to the Prophet Moses)
Christianity: Old Testament. New Testament (The testament according to the Prophet Jesus)
Muslim: Old Testament, New Testament, Koran (The testament according to the Prophet Mohammed)
WHICH "christian values" are you speaking of, that apparently doesn't exist in Muslims???
fellas,
As per usual you are over reacting and arguing against something that was never claimed by Craig or by me.
I think it's probably one of those 'straw man' examples.
Wow, If you would like to re read Craig's comment, he offered some examples.
One of the biggies for me however is:
In western democracies, which are indeed historically underpinned by Christianity, women and girls are enfranchised. They have the power to vote, they have access to education and they have access to contraception.
It's even possible to have female ministers in the Christian religion.
That does not exist in societies based on Islam.
However, once again, I do not think ANY religion is purer than the driven snow. All of them, including Christianity, are guilty of crimes against humanity, which often is a crime against their own religious teachings.
Having written that, thus demonstrating that he does not know the meaning of strawman argument he then proceeds to offer one:
Not a good argument, Churchmen and politicians had to be dragged kicking and screaming, with a real body count along the way, to get that far.
Maybe you are unfamiliar with the Arab world being the 'safe' repository of scientific knowledge, and its advancement whilst the effectively Christian world was entering a new reactionary scientific dark age.
We are in the process of entering another where large sections of the population are being encouraged into a life of scientific darkness, just when understanding is most needed to prevent the excesses of those who are really in control further exacerbating conditions on Earth.
You really need to read Shawn Otto's book cited above.
Su2 stop pronouncing from a position of ignorance, revealed by your every post. Do try to find a copy of Shawn Otto's book (and the many others cited over recent years).
No religion is fit for purpose in an overpopulated world. A natural cull will set in, some of this process has already begun as pathogens move outside previously confining boundaries because of changing climate and far too much air travel. Another burgeoning sector is the cruise ship phenomenon conducted without the good sense rule of Starship Enterprise to not interact with the environments visited. The pollution (poor regulation and penny pinching leads to avoidance, flouting even, of regulations WRT effluent and refuse) and sea bed and reef damage from huge anchors being repeatedly dropped and weighed.
As waves get bigger, from warming, as they are and will continue to do, more of these silly vessels will be subject to the attention of so called 'freak waves' which they are not constructed to deal with without damage to superstructure. Huge seas, Force 11 & 12 winds is something I have experienced on a warship. Even with a huge swell structural damage occurred with 30 and 40 ft splits opening in the hull below a boat deck whereby the deck and boat (the latter being smashed) were pushed up into the one above by the force of the water repeatedly entering.
Being on the south coast of England I have had plenty of opportunity to watch these monsters and would never wish to voyage on one, I have never been sea sick (or air sick having coped with practice intercepts in jet fighters) that is not my concern. I consider a 'Poseidon Adventure' not far way and there are many other opportunities for trouble (pathogens again) in a poorly regulated, cost cutting industry as those on the Costa Concordia discovered.
The above is just one example of the silly antics of unthinking people. Humans can be so ignorantly unaware of the effects of their actions and the danger they cause to themselves and others.
"In western democracies, which are indeed historically underpinned by Christianity, "
The western bit may be said to be underpinned by Christianity (by the sword conversion), but what the fuck is it about the DEMOCRACY that is underpinned by Christianity, moron?
Hell, it's far more accurate to call it underpinned by the hellenistic polytheism of the Greeks. At least there you have divine inspiration for a plethora of views to be held, whereas Christianity only ever justified the kings and nobility of the feudal systems. They were, after all, ordained in that position by Gawd, who plots the futures of each and every person, therefore it would be impossible for someone it didn't want to be boss to be born in that family.
Stu2
Pay attention to this Craig Murray interview..
Chilcot is something of a whitewash.
Yes Lionel.
There was much resistance.
Nonetheless, women and girls are far better off than societies based on Islam.
Lionel,
Out of interest- as I had not heard of Shawn Otto- I looked him up.
In the context of this discussion, here's some questions for you.
How do you think Mr Otto would go in an Islamic society writing this type of piece (of course attacking their religious values) ?
http://www.shawnotto.com/#!Texas-Lt-Gov-Dan-Patrick-Must-Resign-Over-An…
How do you think his very well educated wife would fare in an Islamic society?
How would he go espousing his views on same sex relationships and transgender issues?
To be very clear once again, I do not think any religion is purer than the driven snow and I can't see where Craig claimed that either.
I don't subscribe to any particular religion or brand separatist brands within religions.
In context however, Craig has made a valid point.
"It’s even possible to have female ministers in the Christian religion.
That does not exist in societies based on Islam."
What a numbskull this is.
Benazir Bhutto, PM of Pakistan - hey, f#cker, pay attention, PRIME minister 1988-90/1993-96.
Megawati Sukanoputri, president of the world's largest muslim country Indonesia, 2001-04.
Tansu Ciller, PRIME minister of Turkey, 1993-95.
Mame Madior Boye, PRIME minister of Senegal, 2001-02.
Begum Khaleda Zia, PRIME minister of Bangladesh 1991-96 and 2001-06.
Sheikh Hasina Wajed, PRIME minister of Bangladesh 1996-2001 and 2009-present.
Masoumeh Ebtekar, vice president of Iran, 1997-2005.
Bibi Ameenah Firdaus Gurib-Fakim, Mauritius, 2015-present.
Atifete Jahjaga, Kosovo, 2011-16.
No, that list ain't all. Homework: ordinary ministers.
Holland never a PM. US never a PotUS. Ha, ha. Idiot.
Bibi Ameenah Firdaus Gurib-Fakim, Mauritius, 2015-present.
Atifete Jahjaga, Kosovo, 2011-16.
Presidents.
Lionel A, I just got my Otto. My next read (after conflict of visions by Sowell).
Arrgh! To make it clear, in answer to 2sheltered:
All those points are of the kind offered by 'Soapy Sam' in the 19th century and betrays a very narrow point of view from somebody who has lead a very blinkered sheltered education type of life.
LGBTs have a human right to be treated as fairly as the next person. Fundamentalists of all stripes have got it wrong. Many with conflicted sexuality are born that way and there are many shapes between full male and full female but more subtly in the biological construction of the brain and how it identifies its sex. It may come as a surprised to you that some have the characteristics of the female in upper body build and mannerisms but have elements, varied here, of male genitalia. Which public bathroom (in the US sense) should these latter use?
Those who 'feel' female although exhibiting all the biological traits of the male, and these people do exist, are conflicted enough without being persecuted by ignorant fundamentalists Christian, Jew or Muslim.
Shawn Otto speaks for them. I have seen diatribes from so called Christians recently on this, and other troublesome social issue including still those around race [1], and it saddens me. It appears human civilization has advanced beyond the capability of the average human intellect to adjust.
Otto, is trying to make you aware of the 'Pandora's Box' of troubles around us and you should read his book. But as always those in real need will continue to vacillate and respond with nothing more than rhetorical garbage. Understanding all this is clearly beyond you. It is that old continuum again from data to wisdom and you are still stuck in the pre-understanding phase of incomplete knowledge.
[1] I would not be surprised to see a sudden resurrection of the KKK in the US.
“It’s even possible to have female ministers in the Christian religion."
It is impossible and it never happened.
It is only possible in countries which have battled totalitarian christianity to create more secular govts.
Lionel.
I was not criticising Otto's opinions. I asked you some questions in the context of Craig's comment on the previous page.
And once again, at no point have I defended any relgion or brand of religion.
cRR Kampen.
Maybe you misunderstood?
By minister, I meant like a Christian minister.
And your own comment @#14 actually supports Craig's earlier comment as well as mine.
#15, right...
Oh, well, on that, too, islam is like christianity...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_as_imams
'And your own comment @#14 actually supports Craig’s earlier comment as well as mine.'
Unlike Craig, I see no difference with christianity or even buddhism (as in societal practice, that is).
But true, there were remarks by you and Craig that I do subscribe to.
So the point of your dribble was ....?
As for Craig, taking his statements in the round, he clearly defends civilisation founded on Christianity when we can put up countless examples which demonstrate why Christianity, or any religion which require belief without evidence, is no longer fit for human societies faced with many wicked problems.
Indeed the fundamentalism that comes out of religion, of most types, is making matters acutely worse especially when it is used as cover for sectarian violence and discrimination.
Fellas.
I reread the previous comments and see you chastising Craig and defending Islamic societies all the way to cRR Kampen's comment @#100.
All of you have typically over reacted.
I'm finding your behaviour ironic as it's remarkably similar to those you claim to abhor.
And Lionel,
The point was to ask you some in context questions after I looked up Otto on your recommendation.
I have no personal issue with Otto's link that I posted.
I asked YOU how YOU thought he, his wife and his published comments about a governor who quotes the bible would fare in an Islamic society.
I note you didn't answer that question.
To quote you.
What was the point of your dribble?
Stupid remains stupid.
One cannot answer an poorly phrased question (IOW dribble) based upon a hypothesis where one of the starting boundary conditions is false.
If you cannot grasp what I mean there I would not be at all surprised as following the nuances of arguments and processes seems beyond you.
Who is defending Islamic societies? Note my mention of the dangers and limitations of fundamentalism. Once again your inability shows through.
Nothing wrong with the question Lionel.
You have chosen not to answer it.
"As per usual you are over reacting "
An odd way to spell "Not agreeing with me, I don't like that!".
You see you're actually completely wrong, and pretending that telling you are wrong is over-reacting doesn't do anything other than indicate you don't know how to accept being wrong.
"In the context of this discussion, here’s some questions for you."
In the context of the discussion, how is Mr Otto relevant? He isn't Western Civilisation, nor is he Christianity.
"How do you think his very well educated wife would fare in an Islamic society?"
About as well as he would in a Christian one. We here have a secular one where figments of your imagination are not good reasons for otherwise criminal acts.
"And once again, at no point have I defended any relgion or brand of religion."
Aaand here we have the blatant lie. No, you HAVE defended Christianity. Multiple times. Even on this page of the thread. And vilified Islam.
"By minister, I meant like a Christian minister."
No RCC allows a female minister. RCC *IS* Christian, right? They say they are, which is all the other christians have as "proof". You see, St Paul, the first Pope insisted, as per instructions in the New Testament, that a priest with intact and full testes (so not a woman) must give the rites to turn the communion wafer into the literal body of christ and the communion wine into the literal blood of the dead jew guy.
Moreover, this is another "defence" of christianity.
"Nothing wrong with the question Lionel."
No, there's something critically wrong with it, as Lionel pointed out and you pretended never existed.
Uh! Oh!
Government axes climate department
Translation, we need to burn more coal to keep prices down, besides my GWPF pal Matt Ridley needs to sell his coal.
Wow.
Lionel introduced Otto into this discussion.
That's why I asked those questions.
Instead of answering them he chose to lecture me about Otto.
For people who profess to have high level thinking and comprehension skills, I'm finding you blokes very amusing.
It appears you are claiming that women are treated just as fairly in Islamic states as they are in the countries that Craig compared them to?
They were not valid questions, more in the line of rhetorical statements which cannot be answered.
You really are as dim as a Toc-H lamp, as thick as two short planks. Your village needs your return. One can have a more constructive dialogue with a brick wall for there is more sense in the echo.
I found pictures of the dead mangroves in the Gulf very disturbing.
Shsh Li D,
WRT #27 not in front of the children, they throw a fit and end up muttering in the corner wearing little conical hats with D-K on them, stamping their feet whilst mouthing inanities.
OK Lionel.
Remaining in context, what was invalid about the question?
Particularly because you told me I should read about Otto?
Stupid,
I suggested that you read Shawn Otto's book and not that you should look him up and then come back with rhetorical vagueness of no importance.
Besides when it comes to questions, have you answered those of Bernard J yet? No you have not, so just read learn and keep quite until you have done so. Got it?
Lionel.
I read his blog, as atm I don't have his book.
I linked one of his most recent posts on his blog and asked you an entirely relevant question in terms of the comments here.
You have chosen to lecture me rather than answer the question
Amusingly I was not criticising Otto's opinions or his ability to clearly state them.
The question was neither rhetorical or vague.
Perhaps you could identify, with reference to the actual comments here, why you claim the question was of no importance?
Also, what Bernard J question?
He has not been part of this particular exchange.
This is what I've read and learned from you Lionel.
"Don't do as I do....do as I say!"
And how does one "keep quite"????
Because according to your self appointed expertise in expression, it can't possibly be a mistake can it?
Hum, very amusing, picking up on a typo (gout tends to make the happen) demonstrates what an &r$£ you are.
Whatever it could be interpreted as a suggestion to stay out until you are better informed by reading the book cited. That was what was asked of you not for you to come back with squirrels to deflect.
Thus the “Don’t do as I do….do as I say!” is another mischaracterisation, also demonstrating what an &r$£ you are. You have a short memory WRT Bernard J's questions asked in many threads over time. Once again by narrowing that to this thread only shows what an &r$£ you are.
So instead of actually engaging on the topic what did you just do Lionel?
In Australia we say:
"Don't sweat the small stuff"
My NZ relations say:
"Sweat the large stuff"
I'm also thinking you're trying to argue that because you believe I didn't answer someone else's question some vaguely referenced other place and time, then you can somehow behave just as badly as you claim I have????
:-) In Australia we have a name for that too, but I'm way too polite to use it.
But anyway Lionel, when you're ready to actually engage in the actual topic, happy to oblige.
As Geoff has been trying to point out to the stupids of the world biodiversity is reduced to levels which were major causes for concern. This is something economists and policy advisers to politician are either totally ignorant about or are trying to keep from the public at large by not giving the topic 'oxygen' in the press.
Oh! Boy! Are we heading for shit creek and yes the world, the biospheric part, is edging towards disaster. Don't believe me, well look here:
Biodiversity is below safe levels across more than half of world's land – study
and as we know with warming waters and increasing acidification, other forms of pollution combined with over-harvesting using ecological destructive techniques the ocean and limnic systems are not at all healthy either.
Sorry was engaging with somebody with that handle and then had a senior moment, should be:
"As Jeff has been trying to..."
#28
" not in front of the children "
Hahahahaha
I have every expectation, due to the
phenomena of fractal wrongness, that
the D-K kiddies will make the same cognitive
errors whilst discussing religion.
One can see this in the Cornwall Alliance actually.
Reading some Lynas. Six degrees. Sobering.
There was a nice allegory on the radio
from a scientist at the usa Wood Hole research place.
She spoke of the ocean and atmosphere dancing with
each other.
As this followed from you who will not be named:
shows that you do anything but by persisting in humbug.
The content of Otto's book was the subject you numbskull not some other stuff that you found about Otto.
Totally differentt topic Lionel.
But that's OK.
You go for it.
:-)
BTW
In Australia we also have a name for people who persistently sling personal abuse.
But IMHO, calling people names is just plain rude and does nothing at all to facilitate a civil discussion.
You can cast aspersions on my character and make unfounded claims about my level of intelligence until the cows come home Lionel.
It doesn't prove anything and actually says more about you than anything about me.
#41
Yeah? Whats that name then?
There are 2 that both mean much the same.
They both imply that someone is personally gratifying themselves :-)
Ahhh.
I think i know one of em.
Denier. As in, " stop playing with ya doodle, denier,
and try to comprehend what the science is saying. "
" ... and get them filthy Quadrants and Heartland mailouts
out from under your bed and throw em in the bin"
Nah. Not even close :-)
Perhaps you're not an Aussie?
And I seriously doubt that Lionel would fit the deltoid idea of 'denier' :-)
Having served in the RN for a couple of decades I figure I could teach you a few terms in the vernacular line Stupid, but they are most certainly not for the eyes of children such as yourself for juvenile is the level of your debating, you simply keep getting the wrong Idea of how to respond with relevance. The words you are hinting at were used as through-away remarks so frequently did they occur.
Lionel.
How do you reckon Otto and his wife would fare in an Islamic State if he publicly criticiced a member of their government for quoting the Koran?
Keep in mind I have no personal issue with what Otto wrote.
The question was in relation to Craig's comments on the previous page.
Keep in mind also that I did not claim that the Christian religion or societies underpinned by Christianity is purer than the driven snow.
& Lionel, you are teaching me something, it's not however anything to do with using the vernacular line.
Congratulations on your decades in the RN.
Wow
WHAT “Christian Values”???? Remember, the three religions believe in the samen goddamned god,
You know, wow, if you know little about religion and history, maybe just read and learn instead of disrupting the adult's conversation.
Christianity is a religion of Western Europe, and in practical terms bears little resemblannce with the middle-eastern religions.
Take the christian "prophet/god" - Jesus - he was a social reformer who advocated egalitarianism, socialism, and peaceful resolution to conflicts.
In order - washing the feet of Mary Magdalene, "easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of god", and "turn the other cheek.
He advocated the Golden Rule.
Contrast this with Mohammed - a bandit who justified his depredations on the grounds that his victims believed in the wrong god, or the right god, but the wrong way. His followers to this day adhere to his values - those values being, essentially, those of the moon-god, the god of thieves, all about theft, murder and rapine.
Where Islam has spread you have oppression, violence, chaos, defective societies and refugees.
Where Christianity has spread, we have modern societies.
If you want to get past the lazy and ignorant "they all worship the same god" nonsense, which has no bearing on the resulting model of a modern, secular state, you need to look at the myth of Jesus, its Greek instigators, what the Romans did when they took on the religion, and most critically, the transfer of power from the Merovingian to Carolingian dynasties which is where the course of modern civilisation was decided.
And judging by the comments since your earlier post Craig, it seems that many here would like us all to literally jump out of the frying pan and into the fire?????
— from Wiki
— from Wiki
I doubt any would argue that Judaism is also a monotheistic Abrahamic religion.
So Wow’s essential description stands and Craig’s:
is simplistic enough to be not even wrong.
What I, and most people of reason abhor is the scientific vacuum created by those evolving fundamentalism in any one of these. And it is this, amongst other aspects of the perversion of science, that Otto tackles in his book.
Now if 2Stew would only read Otto’s book then all the silly argument 2Stew puts up are answered. That is why responses based upon other aspects of Otto become moot, beside the point and not worth engaging with.
Other than to point out that Otto includes mention of Mu'tazilites in the context if the rich seem of scientific study and knowledge that underpinned the later works of such as Bacon, Newton and so on, once the dark ages had been shaken off with a little help from the invention of the printing press. Even today there are many talented Muslims working in scientific fields including nuclear physics where one Jim al-Khalili would be know to those who have studied Quantum Physics.
As It happens at the moment aside from reading Otto and Jeff Nesbit’s ‘Poison Tea: How Big Oil and Big Tobacco Invented the Tea Party and Captured the GOP’ I have returned to Darwin’s ‘Voyage of the Beagle’ and associated works which just happen to also have relevance to the arguments here — how Darwin's thoughts on evolution evolved against a background of Vicars engaged in botany and beetle collecting.
The onward march of the demagogue Trump with his hate filled rhetoric and rabble rousing have done nothing to calm the troubled, latterly stormy, waters of inter-racial relations in the US has had prominent support from those who are Pro-Life and become incensed at any suggestion of gun control having been thoroughly brainwashed by propaganda from the NRA (and other similar under the imprimatur of e.g. ‘The Allen West Republic’). I suppose if you want freedom of gun use amongst the populace then more living targets are required.
Many of these same people profess to be Christians which just about sums up the problem. This is why this topic is so important just at a time when people of the world need to get together to tackle the onrushing environmental issues.
If you don’t read Otto’s book then you are ignorant of the relevant arguments and I am not in a position, physically to type out lengthy extracts, this is why you 2Stew are so irritating with your vacillating replies before bothering to study the book.
#51 " modern societies "
Are you taking the piss?
https://youtu.be/L6fem7-ucxg
Oops sorry, i didnt attribute the link.
Kev Carmody. Though shall not steal.
" theft murder and rapine "
So thats the sum total of Recent Indonesian Anthropological
history is it? No art or science or intellect or architecture or
or poetry or culinary prowess or agriculture or boatbuilding
or medicine. Just theft ( twice! must be a real thieving mob )
and murder.
Christ, i dont even care about religious bullshit.
This country is getting so rooted so quickly.
Roadside slashers are REALLY spreading the weeds now.
Dickheads in NSW wanna clear more land to grow crap.
So much for agricultural efficiency. Its just a hi falutin slash
and burn model sans a regeneration period. On the poorest
crappest soil in the universe.
I actually reckon undisturbed bush has half a chance of surviving the speed of climate change. Just half.
But disturbed land and species? Doomed.
Wanna say one more thing cuz im still pissed at #51.
When did Jesus diseminate a not entirely original message?
When did the poms and other colonial christian types get the drift of the message?
Post 1960 sometime?
Wasnt too long ago was it. Slow learners?
Hypocritical scum they are.
Lionel.
Otto is the author of the book.
Otto has a blog that enables him to elaborate on certain aspects of the book you refer to plus other things he has published and achieved.
I asked a relevant question of you after I visited the blog.
You are arguing above that my question is invalid because you think the author of the book is seperate from the same person at the blog????
My question still stands, especially since Craig has commented again.
I'll expand it for you.
Craig commented (twice) on the development of societies and the underpinning religious values.
You raised Otto and his book as a rebuttal of Craig's comments.
I looked him up and then linked one of his most recent posts.
I asked YOU how YOU thought Otto would go publishing something that criticised a govt official quoting the Koran in an Islamic State?
He's free to do that in his country.
Stupid, and that is really beginning to fit.
I pointed you at Otto's book that will go a long way to enlighten you away from your misconceptions. Now you persists in avoiding doing that so any basis for further discussion is absent, why is this so hard for you to understand?
Now I refuse to engage with you further on this topic for clearly it is a waste of effort. Horses to water and all that!
"Wow.
Lionel introduced Otto into this discussion."
And YOU introduced your question into this discussion, StuPid.
Frigging moron.
"This is what I’ve read and learned from you Lionel.
“Don’t do as I do….do as I say!”"
This is because you live in a Walter Mitty world where everything has to pass your prior, therefore you will reimagine reality to fit.
"Wow
WHAT “Christian Values”???? Remember, the three religions believe in the samen goddamned god,
You know, wow, if you know little about religion and history, maybe just read and learn instead of disrupting the adult’s conversation."
Craig, if you had anythng to say you'd have said it, rather than make a vague complaint completely independent of reality.
If you'd know what the fuck you're on about, you would have tried to actually present what difference you were blabbing on about.
"Christianity is a religion of Western Europe, "
Nope, it isn't. It's a Middle East religion.
Moreover, even if you elide history so as to start AFTER it had "done a caliphate" in Europe and killed everyone who didn't follow "the real god", it really doesn't indicate ANY "Christian values", and doesnt disprove that our Western Civilisation is from secularism and the polytheism of ancient Greece, not some fanatic morons in goatskins.
"Take the christian “prophet/god” – Jesus"
FAIL.
JC says he wasn't god. And most christians don't believe he was god. At MOST some of them believe that there's the trinity which includes JC *but also god* as another part of the trinity.
Unitarians think theyre all the same thing, but they're a VERY small sect of christians, which had NOTHING to do with western democracy.
"Jesus – he was a social reformer who advocated egalitarianism, socialism, and peaceful resolution to conflicts."
So was Mohammed. READ THE FUCKING QURAN!
Of course, since he survived persecution and become a bigwig, his later work was all about using force. But since JC was supposedly killed young, he never got the chance to expand on the violence he promoted in the New Testament (yes, you fucking idiot, there IS a lot of JC calling for violence and bloodshed in the NT, apparently you don't know your own bloody religion, rather ironic given your whinge starting that idiotic screed of yours).
"Where Christianity has spread, we have modern societies."
WRONG.
1) Christian Africa has tribal societies, still stuck in the "kill kill kill" mantra. They are not the only ones, many places in the USA are stuck there too
2) Where we have SECULARISM we have modern societies.
3) Where we have christianity coming back we have regressive and despotic societies full of hate and ignorance
"If you want to get past the lazy and ignorant “they all worship the same god” nonsense,"
Which is not lazy or ignorant but the truth. "Nuh uh!" is lazy and ignorant.
"which has no bearing on the resulting model of a modern, secular state,"
Indeed not, because those modern secular states are the result of SECULARISM and atheist social morality.y
"you need to look at the myth of Jesus, its Greek instigators,"
WHAT greek instigators? They were polytheists.
" what the Romans did when they took on the religion,"
Exactly what the Islamists are doing today.
" and most critically, the transfer of power from the Merovingian to Carolingian dynasties which is where the course of modern civilisation was decided."
Claimed without any evidence or thought.
Refuted likewise.
"like us all to literally jump out of the frying pan and into the fire????"
You obviously don't know the meaning of "literally".
Unless you're already both standing IN a frying pan, without which OUR desires for you ignoramuses is irrelevant.
"Christianity[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic[1] religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament and sacred tradition."
And if there's no OT, there's no creation (and no god), no Adam and Eve, no Original Sin, no sacrifice to make and therefore no reason to worship JC. Without the OT, the NT is meaningless as to religion or gods.
Yes Wow, I asked the question after Lionel introduced Otto into the discussion. Very good :-)
The question was relevant to the comments.
Yes, you asked the question, Stupid. The question wasn't asked by Lionel, therefore your "dodge" is false. The fallacy is in the question, not in Otto's introduction to the thread.
Fucking moron.
"The question was relevant to the comments."
The question is fallacious, and even if it were "relevant to the comments", its fallacy is irrelevant to that claim, and this claim is therefore fallacious.
Not worth debating a zealot Wow.
Stu2, The US is an unusually open society. Its one positive aspect of their political culture. But you focus on one small tenet. Let's look at the death toll imposed by US foreign (and domestic, if we start with the Indian wars and annihilation of native peoples) policies. Its abhorrent and anything mustered up by Islamic societies plaes by comparison. I am not saying they are better, but that our alleged civilization in the developed Christian world is expert at terrorism, mass murder, violence and brutaliity. There's piles of evidence to back this up. Look at the US record in Latin America, particularly after the policy switch from 'hemispheric defense' to 'internal security'. Its appalling. Capitalism alone is destroying the ability of natural ecosystems to sustain themselves (as a new paper in Science shows).
You and Craig could not win a debate on Christian morality in a million years. I don't even know whay you try. You use ISIL as a yardstick, without explaining that it exists because of US foreign policies and the effective destruction of Iraq. You ignore how the US and UK aids and abets extreme Islam if it is their interests to do so. That they see the real enemy as global hegemon in terms of independent nationalism. Islam is just a convenient excuse, just as communism was used to justify repression and mass murder across SE Asia and Latin America.
But you cannot debate a soaking wet paper bag. Give it up and lick your wounds.
"just as communism was used to justify repression and mass murder across SE Asia and Latin America.' - except when it killed some Vietnamese. So the Khmer Rouge was a friend of the US and considered the lawful govt of Cambodja by the US until 1987, ten years after the Vietnamese army ousted the regime (and earned a decade's worth of Nobel Peace Prizes for that).
By the way, Daesh is sooooooo nothing compared to the KR.
Jeff,
If I sort through the irrelevant as well as the personal abuse in your comment I find that I don't disagree and that it actually confirms the basic point that Craig makes.
It is not unique to the US, the type of socities Craig was referring to are open societies and in the big picture it is unusual.
Despite the sad case of the human psyche in general, and the fact that every brand of religion is far from perfect, in practical terms, where Christianity has spread, it's more likely to see those unusually open societies.
An open society, though once again far from perfect and still riddled with zealots, is nevertheless the type of modern civilization that is likely to foster positive change. People like Otto can easily reach others in that type of society.
Oh dear, from somebody who has not read 'The Scramble for Africa' by Thomas Pakenham amongst others that could be, and have been over the years here, suggested.
Lionel,
The comments were about the general and practical circumstances. Of course there are exceptions as there are in Islamic countries.
At no point has anyone claimed a utopia exists somewhere.
The discussion is really more about which is the least guilty of blockading the development of modern, open societies. All brands of religion are indeed guilty.
So Wow,
Perhaps you meant to ask Lionel the question you asked me @#23?
How is Mr Otto relevant?
Stu2, there's no personal abuse in statng that you can't debate worth a damn. Its a simple fact. You are clinging to this desperate tenet about the openness of Christian societies when this openness has been used to justify mass murder and environmental pillage. And its likely that areas now under extreme Islamic law would never have been that way were it not for the actions of the global hegemon and its proxies. As I said, political classes in Washington, London, and any other nations that go along with them have long sought to undermine democracy when this leads to nationalism, and in doing so have paved the way for countries like Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most repressive on Earth, to flourish and for the birth of ISIL and related groups. The reason they have sought to undermine nationalist governments is clear: because they threaten the flow of capital and wealth from the poor south to the rich north. hence why the US has long waged wars on behalf of ruling elites in Latin America and both created and supported extremist Islamic factions in the Middle East and elsewhere. US planners have long thought that the resources of other countries are the property of US investors by right, and that secular, nationalist and often democratic governments that instead intend to utilize their own countries resource wealth to benefit their own people are a threat to this. The evidence for this is staggering and amounts to volumes.
So our Christian-based societies have waged wars - often directly, often by proxy, to ensure that the first beneficiaries of poor nations are western investors. Again, the documentary evidence is overwhelming. In doing so our alleged civilizations have readily embraced extreme and perverse violence to achieve these political ends, creating a death toll which makes ISIL look like nothing more than a lethal flea.
Stu2, you and Craig are arguing from an empty vassal. Give it up. The more you try and defend your untenable position, the worse you look.
Yes Jeff
Humanity has a brutal history and much of that brutality was perpetrated in the name of religion and it still happens.
That doesn't change the basic point that Craig has made here.
Do you think Otto could freely publish the piece I linked in an Islamic country?
(Of course criticising one of their politicians for quoting the Koran)
OK Stu2, I will answer you.
Its context dependent. If the Islamic country was one like Iran under Mossadegh, then YES. If its like Saudi Arabia under Salafi-Wahabi law, then NO.
Seems like our corporatocracies in the develoepd world prefer the Saudi Arabian version of Islam. They don't like the Mossadegh versions because they don't fulfill their service functions as supine client states.
There's your answer. Craig was wrong. He's blinded by his hatred of Islam, despite the fact that the most extreme factiosn were either nurtured by the west to suppress nationalistic movements or else were created by US-UK bombs and mass killing.
You've lost this argument. Try somethign new.
But Jeff?
In the countries that Craig was referring to, Otto quite clearly can?
Of course it's context related. Who said it wasn't?
Detail, the Saudi regime was of course put there by the west.
"So Wow,
Perhaps you meant to ask Lionel the question you asked me @#23?"
No, I meant to ask you, and I did ask you, but you're waffling about.
"How is Mr Otto relevant?"
How is a rhetorical question relevant?
Hey, secularist Saddam was overthrown to become a caliphate by the islamic government that became the US's favourite.
Just like Saddam became the US's favourite before Saddam started to move all their international currency moves to the Euro, which would have fucked the US's debt right up.
Hence the public punishment beating he received.
Meanwhile, Afghan warlords are given young boy sex slaves by the *oh so moral* western forces as *bribes*....
"In the countries that Craig was referring to, Otto quite clearly can?"
Can he?
And is it merely because of "christian values"?
If so, how do you tell, and which "christian values" are these, a question Craig avoided even hinting at a solution to when he "deigned" to "answer" the question posed to him previously.
2Stu,
The context of my mention of Shawn Otto and his book was laid out in my post (previous page #92) so do go read that and stop your wibbling, you have gone off on a tangent as reading of the article linked within that post will make clear.
Reading that article will also reveal why going much further than mentioning the book within the confines of Deltoid is all but impossible to do it justice. I'll now leave you with a quote from that article but do read the rest of it, it seems you have not so far and before pontificating off target. It is this behaviour, you repeatedly offend thus, which has earned you such disparaging names.
My emphasis:
Lionel,
As well as your replies to Craig you also introduced Otto. I asked a relevant question that linked the 2 together.
Which you still haven't answered.
At no point did I say I have an issue with Otto or his work.
I did however have an issue with your comments.
Stu2, many of the countries Craig lists are western clients. We sell them many billions of dollars of weapons that are used to suppress their own people and to wage wars with neighbors (e.g. Yemen) that create humanitarian catastrophes. Its complete hypocrisy to attack countries for banning books and supporting them at the same time. The countries Craig lists would probably by-and-large be much more open secular democracies had not the UK and France via the Sykes-Picot agreement and then later the US waded in to suppress this nationalism by propping up extremism. The context I was referring to is based on US-UK support. Mossadegh's election was a burgeoning model for the region which was crushed by the US and UK, and subsequent policies destroyed any chance that these countries would become open societies. We are now reaping what we have sown. Despite that, for purely selfish economic and strategic reasons, the US and UK routinely still support extreme Islam is they think it is politically expedient to do so. Nowhere in Craig's (or your) puerile views are these facts raised. Its all black and white, and western governments are treated as if they have had no hand in creating these situations.
Again, its proof that you cannot discuss these issues. Your simple linear arguments don't hold and ice here.
The mention of Sykes-Pico has probably sent Stu2 to the Google to discover what that is about. Whilst there Su2 look up 'The Balfour Declaration'.
Find a copy of Peacemakers Six Months that Changed The World, to discover more. I link to that version by having a copy myself. Also found under the title 'Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World'.
You could also watch this.
Now for the last time I am not going to answer a poorly phrased non question, something you threw into the mix to obfuscate and evade.
The end of the world will not be broadcast in the media. Instead they'll gloss over some half bared nipple or something.
The largest biomass of the earth is going now.
https://lance.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=c…
Just a couple million square miles in central Siberia. The Arctic, including tundra peat, is burning massively too.
Yes Jeff.
We do indeed reap what we sow.
People mistreat each other and whole countries mistreat each other.
Even scientists do that.
There is no black or white.
As I commented above, it looks like this is more about arguing over the 'least guilty' prize.
I partly agree with Craig that where Christianity has spread those societies in general terms have had a better stab at creating a modern civil society.
People like Otto are free to question values.
Lionel,
You're apparently more interested in lecturing and sneering than anything else?
'... at creating a modern civil society.' - including slavery, two world wars, the killing of Vietnam, the Shoa, and a lot of colonial genocides (some will have noted the German belated apology for the Herrero genocide).
Christianity on the whole is the worst parasite ever.
"I asked a relevant question that linked the 2 together."
No you didn't.
You asked a leading semi-question where you posited a claim with a query mark at the end as if it were a question, and there was no way they "tied the two together", whatever two you were "thinking" of (but, of course, incapable of describing).
Then, of course, you pretended you never asked a question at all.
That having failed you're now misrepresenting the question you put out in the hopes that something can be salvaged from your idiocy.
"Yes Jeff.
We do indeed reap what we sow."
Meaningless pablum. Your "even scientists" makes a fatuous empty claim that has no bearing on anything, merely being made so that you can sop your pride with "But everyone else is just as bad as me!!!!".
Doesn't work, pipsqueak.
Wow.
I think you might need some help.
Your glass isn't even half empty, it's bone dry.
Or, if it does have something in it, it's suffering from some type of toxicity.
cRR.
The comments was "a better stab......."
This discussion is really more about which is the least guilty because all are guilty.
@#90 you say Christianity is the worst parasite.
It's a negative argument.
Stu2, what we are saying is that the point Craig made was ludicrous. He praised Christianity in full knowledge that this religion is soaked in blood and violence, and this violence perpetuates to the current day. And not only violence against fellow man, but against nature. Its the foundations of our over consumptive rapaciously destructive systems that are destroying natural systems upon which we depend. Craig didn't think we he put up his flippant remark. He simply let his loathing of Islam cloud his judgment.
Stu2, let us generalize.
"Men and women first construct towering systems of theology and religion, complex analyses of racial character and class structure, or moralities of group life and virility before they kill one another. Thus they fight for protestantism or Mohammedanism, for the emancipation of the world proletariat or for the salvation of the Nordic culture, for nation or for king. Men will die like flies for theories and exterminate each other with every instrument of destruction for abstractions" (Durbin & Bowlby, 1938).
#95, as you say.
https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-…
Note the (quasi-)cycle.
"During the Centenary of the Battle of the Somme I was struck that it was a direct outcome of the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke in Bosnia."
Not so direct, it needed the Russians losing the Battle of Tannenberg. But the idea, the butterfly effect in all, yes.
cRR ref #97
That long view of history, obtained by studying way more than one source for some are extremely unreliable, is so important and it is having done that, reached three score and ten and served at the sharp end is why I look at my grandchildren and shudder especially when I look around at all the stupid thoughtless aspects of consumerism.
Consumerism that is depleting natural resources (especially water), poisoning the environment (especially the water) and choking life all around in the air, on the ground and in the oceans with those especially nasty plastics being a major culprit.
We need a serious re-evaluation by the general public, but lets have another party with fireworks, jazzy decorations, and worry about the effect of all that discarded packaging tomorrow and worry about the state of things next week when we have recovered from our binge.
Pffff Lionel...
Jeff,
If by 'we' you mean you, Wow, Lionel and cCR, then I disagree.
Craig did make two 'flippant' comments, but you blokes are well into the double digits on 'flippant comments'.
Craig was not 'praising' Christianity' IMHO.
He was comparing development of societies.
I agree he was overly flippant about Islam a couple of times.
However, his basic point is valid.
Christianity is the 'least guilty' at blockading an open society where people like Otto are free to voice their opinions.
No one has claimed that any religion is purer than the driven snow.
'Christianity is the ‘least guilty’ at blockading an open society ' - bullshit.
Your argument is like those of some revisionists who claim that acid rain was a hoax, 'you never hear anything about that nowadays', because they skip & deny the measures taken against it.
Open societies are the result of a bloody fight against christianity, not because of christianity. With its Inquisition, witch burnings (I would have been first of course), slavery, countless genocides on Jews and muslims, ...
One word, 'Inquisition'.
Why don't you read Otto's book to get the message intended not least about how we define belief and also understanding and the difference between them. It also provides the negation for those who try to claim that concern about AGW is a religion.
But here is more grist to the mill of the evils of religion , any and all religions.
Some interesting Trump snippets via the home page there. Trump having an 'evangelical moment' indeed, trumped up to wow the fundamentalists in the USA, having already stirred them up to hate any others using Nuremberg style stumping.
Imagine Boris trying to mediate between, or as things may well be with, Trump and Putin. The world is entering a very dangerous phase as far as humans and fellow traveller species are concerned.
"One word, ‘Inquisition’."
Yeah. Well today I came across a piece of brilliant revisionism: witch burnings and Inquisitions were 'actually remnants of paganism'... That is like that other meme of recent: national-socialisme was 'extreme-left' ...
One word, ‘Inquisition’.”
Yeah. Well today I came across a piece of brilliant revisionism: witch burnings and Inquisition were ‘actually remnants of paganism’… That is like that other meme of recent: national-socialisme was ‘extreme-left’ …
(edited: lost the plural...)
How many times do you blokes need to be told that no one here has claimed that any brand or subset of any religion is innocent?
Craig compared the development of modern civilization.
Western democracies, as Jeff even points out re the US, are 'unusually open' societies.
No one is denying that Christianity is also fraught with a brutal history, including the inquisitions.
Your focus is entirely negative and therefore misses the actual context and point of Craig's comments and mine.
And you continue to remain in ignorance of the context under which I first introduced Otto which was WRT arguments within his his book. Instead of engaging with that you continued to throw up squirrels even if referencing Otto.
Therefore your comments are out of context from the start and by hitching your skirt to Craig's later posts you continue to evade the initial suggestion for study and comment WRT Otto's book discussed here.
Fellas, your favorite blogger Steven G (Tony Heller) has given a presentation I'm sure you will appreciate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
Cheers
Hitch my skirt??????
Seriously?
Haha haha :-)
I don't have a problem with Otto, his book or his blog.
Which part of that are you missing Lionel?
You don't need to defend him as no one criticised Otto.
:-)
"Wow.
I think you might need some help."
With what?
Make believe worlds where whether or not you asked a question has bugger all to do with Lionel's introduction of Otto?
Sorry, I don't want help to understand how your brain "works".
"Jeff,
If by ‘we’ you mean you, Wow, Lionel and cCR, then I disagree."
What do you mean "disagree"? That was four people, and the inclusive term for multiple people is "We", therefore there's nothing to disagree.
"Craig did make two ‘flippant’ comments"
Then you DO agree with what jeff said.
"but you blokes are well into the double digits on ‘flippant comments’."
Well, given that you appear to think "flippant" means "I disagree with them", it appears as if you disagree with the meaning of words.
"No one has claimed that any religion is purer than the driven snow."
No one has accused anyone of claiming that some religion is purer than the driven snow.
"Craig was not ‘praising’ Christianity’ IMHO."
Given that you think praising christianity for being more moderate as you understand it to be in your secular society isn't praising christianity, the fact that craig is praising it for being the "bedrock cause" of our secular western democracy is yet another example of you getting definitions wrong.
" …where people like Otto are free to voice their opinions."
IN A SECULAR SOCIETY.
Not "christian", where he would have been burned at the stake.
"How many times do you blokes need to be told that no one here has claimed that any brand or subset of any religion is innocent?"
How many times are you going to pretend you're defending against a claim NEVER ONCE MADE???
"Craig compared the development of modern civilization."
Nope.
Read it again.
He claims it's because of christianity modern civilisation developed.
Pure, unadulterated willful blindness.
"No one is denying that Christianity is also fraught with a brutal history, including the inquisitions."
Craig and you never concede that they are reasons why modern society was not built on "Christian Values".
Moreover, NEITHER OF YOU have EVER proposed WHAT "Christian Values" modern democracy is built on.
Instead of bleating that you've never said what you've never been accused of saying, how about answering what you are charged with instead???
Wow.
Read Craig's comment @#51 previous page.
He proposes what Christian Values modern democracy is built on.
And Wow?
Perhaps you need to look up the definition of 'flippant'?
"Christian Values modern democracy is built on"
Stu2 gets funnier. What modern democracies are we talking about Stu? Because pretty well all of em' in the developed world are actually in thrall to corporations. The ruling elites loathe true democracy because it puts power into the hands of the general public, the 'rabble' who would, if they could, create more egalitarian societies. Adam Smith was one of the first to observe how those in power with wealth exhibited what he called the 'vile maxim'; all for ourselves and nothing for everybody else.
The bottom line in this discussion is that you really don't have much of a clue what's going on in the world. You've got your five cents worth from your Sky News and that's it. I knew I was in trouble with your views months back when you linked to that silly interview with the reformed jihadist. It was kindergarten level discourse symptomatic of our mind-numbing corporate media. Keep the masses dumbed down and make them think that the world is black and white; the civilized 'us' versus the savage 'them'. That's why debating you is a waste of time. You begin this discussion with a limited mind set.
I want to thank Olaus for putting up the hilarious Heller/Goddard video. It cracked me up when he said, There has been little or no warming since the 1940s".
Comedy gold. Its funny how know-nothings witn absolutely no relevant qualifications speak as if they are sages of wisdom. Olaus is always blathering on about illusory (or what he claims are illusory) corporate conspiracies and then he puts up this bullshit, in which NOAA, NASA, The Met Office and every major meteorological/scientific organization must be involved in the mother of all conspiracies.
One little point blows Heller/Goddard out of the water. And that is biotic responses to climate change. Nature does not lie; it just responds. And what we have is a huge data set showing species of plants and animals moving to higher latitudes, higher elevations, altering various aspects of their life cycles such as seasonal phenology or reproduction to earlier times of the year etc. Why are they doing this? because they just want to adjust their ranges? For fun? Just for the sake of it?
Since Heller/Goddard can't tell a hippo from a dung beetle this sails clearly over his head. Of course its warmed signifciantly since the 1940s - indeed since the 1980s. That's why listening to this clown spew his crapola is a total waste of time.
Oh Pointless has clearly not seen this:
I spend my time writing about the economy, but the climate data hits me right in the gut,
and pointless one should check out what has happened to Greenland ice in just the last three years and what happened during this July.
Duff and Rednoise are conspicuous by their absence.
And there you have it.
Jeff believes we're doomed and all off to hell in a handbasket because of things like 'vile maxim', corporate conspiracies, sky news (???) & etc and that nature just responds.
Anyone who dares to question Jeff's opinions, even if they're well educated and might even be widely respected in academia, is still clueless about what's really going on in the world.
Overstating the worst case scenario is political gibberish and has nothing to do with nature.
'Nature' doesn't care, nor does 'nature'make decisions based on the human concept of 'fun'.
Stu2, being educated is not a pretty requisite for knowledge. The vile maxim alluded to by Adam Smith is as relevant today in describing the profit driven imperative of corporations as it was when Smith was describing rich British merchants. You clearly have limited knowledge of the link between our current dominant political-economic system, environment destruction and poverty. That's your problem. You can't debate even the basics. I can easily see from the content of your posts that your understanding of the world is very shallow.
I meant 'pre-requisite'; blame my smart phone for the incorrect word.
BTW Stu, what academics are you speaking about who disagree with me? YOU!? Don't make me laugh.
And in #21 Stu2 descends to Trump level simplistic stupidity and he wibbles about being called such as Stupid. I'll bet Stupid has not read 'The Wealth of Nations'.
Trump level is an upgrade for StuPid, Lionel.
"Wow.
Read Craig’s comment @#51 previous page."
I did, StuPid. Read your comment #8 where you asked idiotic rhetorical questions about Otto. How does #51 existing make your #8 nonexistent???
"Perhaps you need to look up the definition of ‘flippant’?"
I did. Years ago. You need to work on the ACTUAL dictionary definition, StuPid. Not your Humpty-Dumpty version.
“Christian Values modern democracy is built on”
Stu2 gets funnier. What modern democracies are we talking about Stu?
Hell, what Christian Values?
"Christianity is a religion of Western Europe," Not true, and not a "Value", let alone "Christian".
"and in practical terms bears little resemblannce with the middle-eastern religions." Isn't a "Value" either.
"Take the christian “prophet/god” – Jesus " Not a "Value".
"he was a social reformer who advocated egalitarianism, socialism, and peaceful resolution to conflicts." Not a "Value", and existed for mohammed too.
"In order – washing the feet of Mary Magdalene" Not a "Value", and since Mags is well dead, definitely not one we can practice today. Also note that this is NOT "Western", but middle east. You know, where the frigging thing is set.
, “easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of god”, Not a "Value" of the West, definitely. And not one of Christianity. Many religions also have similar sayings. Is Western Democracy Shinto???
"and “turn the other cheek." We don't do that in the West.
"He advocated the Golden Rule.² Which existed a thousand years before. In what way is that in any way "Christian Values"??? FFS, *ATHEISTS* get the same damned rule, merely from teleological positivism.
"Contrast this with Mohammed – a bandit who justified his depredations on the grounds that his victims believed in the wrong god,"
Contrast with JC who came with the Sword and Fire.
Etc.
Very good Wow.
You've copy/pasted the proposed values.
Well done.
Jeff.
'Nature' does not simply respond, nor does 'Nature' give 2 hoots about the human concept of 'fun'.
You have no practical solutions to manage your 'he'll in a handbasket' propositions, you only over state the worst case scenario amidst a plethora of political gibberish.
'Nature' doesn't give 2 hoots about your politics either.
As always, I was writing above Stu2's little pin-sized head. What a simpleton.
'Nature responds' is a euphemism for individuals, populations, species, communities and ecosystems elucidating ecophysiological responses to a changes in abiotic and biotic conditions and/or stresses. Given that your understanding of the field of population ecology is nil or very close to it, I should have expected that you would not understand my response to the latest bile spewed out by Olaus and one of his heroes, Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard. You are such a puerile nitwit Stu2 that you think by response I intimated some form of emotional condition. You forget that I am indeed a scientist with a lenghty publication list and over 5000 citations. I don't answer the kindergarten level brigade deniers like you apparently do who try and drag discussions to the lowest common denominator. Heller, like most of the so-called prominent deniers, has little or no relevant expertise. Even the clowns you cite here occasionally for the most part have little in the way of publications and citations. They are only know because as AGW deniers they are among the very few with ANY scientific background and as such are given veritable megaphones by the well-funded and organized climate change denial lobby.
As for nature not giving a hoot about global politics, there you go again, trying to smear an entire field with an anthropogenic veneer. Nature may not 'give a hoot' emotionally but given the rapacious costs of largely unregulated capitalism across the biosphere, we can certainly say that natural systems are being pushed towards the brink beyond which many systems will be unable to sustain themselves and. ultimately, us. A very recent paper in Science shows unambiguously that biodiversity has been reduced to levels barely able to maintain viable ecosystem functioning and the delivery of vital ecosystem services, and that further erosion of diversity will (indeed is) have very serious repercussions.
Of course, again this is all over your head. As I said before, why you even try and debate on anything is beyond me. You stink.
No solutions.
Just alarmist, political gibberish..
'why you even try and debate on anything' - he doesn't. Answers with silly remarks and some word salad as in #28.
Stu2 must be some relinut, immersed into personifying things like nature and thus so totally no able to parse what someone could mean by 'nature responds'.
Stu2 wants solutions. Then read the latest book by Chris Hedges, 'Wages of Rebellion'. The solution is simple. We need a revolution to replace the rapacious Washington Consensus with something approaching an egalitarian system of governance. The current system is killing the planet, driving further inequality and is unsustainable. Its telling that those pushing for 'Charters of the Forest' and respect for natural systems are mostly the poor or indigenous peoples. The rich ruling elites are content to keep sucking the planet dry.
As for 'gibberish', that's Stu2s euphemism for politics and economics that he doesn't understand. Nothing I write about global politics is really at all controversial, but it sure will be to those drip-fed corporate bullshit their entire lives. Stu2's occasional forays into this are reveal where he gets the bulk of his 'news' from. Let's just say that I am infinitely better read and well informed than he is and leave it at that.
"No solutions.
Just alarmist, political gibberish.."
Don't worry, Stupid, we're used to that from you.
"As for nature not giving a hoot about global politics, there you go again, trying to smear an entire field with an anthropogenic veneer."
Hell, what's "nature doesn't give a hoot about global politics" supposed to mean? Nature doesn't give a hoot about whether it gives a hoot, and politics likewise.
Nuclear fusion doesn't give a hoot about global politics either, but a global thermonuclear war started by some tinpot state with a nuclear weapon stash is still caused by global politics.
All we get from StuPid is, obviously enough, stupidity. Words signifying nothing, about which StuPid complains incessantly if we try to find out what might usefully be made from the pablum of his comments.
"Very good Wow.
You’ve copy/pasted the proposed values."
Very Stupid, StuPid. You haven't read them. You didn't even read my post about them on that page, where I pointed out that they lacked "Values" listed, never mind "christian"ness. They aren't "Christian Values". 80% of them AREN'T EVEN VALUES, the remainder being neither christian only values, none of them explain how they "cause" our western secular democracy.
Yet reality shows quite clearly it came as an outgrowth of the Age of Enlightenment where atheists looked at reality and decided that religion was an anathema to any sane and humane state.
And what we have is where secularism resides (even in the Middle East: Saddam was a secular state and he treated the minorities no worse than the USA treated theirs or the UK treated the Irish), we have stable democracy for all, and where we have religious states INCLUDING CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS COUNTRIES that treat people not of the "True Faith" as unhuman and commit atrocities freely under the idiotic assumption that since it's "the true religion", they are "doing the right thing".
Western democracy, even when it's not in the West, is due to atheism, not christianity.
Reality check for 2Stupid and note Jeff does understand what the answer is as he had repeatedly made clear, clear to anybody with the requisite knowledge and thinking skills.
If you find it hard to read, look up post #63 on the previous page, StuPid.
Jeff.
Where is the evidence that a social revolution is beneficial to the planet?
Also, where is the evidence that 'the Washington Consensus' is some deep, dark, rapacious conspiracy?
Williamson has written extensively on this topic.
Stu2, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky have also written extensively about the 'Washington Consensus'. There's nothing really conspiratorial about it; its simply a fact that since the 1980s in particular (thanks to Reagan and Thatcher) we've witnessed mass deregulation of economies aimed at allowing banks and corporations to increase profits and to be less constrained by government. Corporations now effectively determine US policy and free trade agreements (NAFTA, TTIP, TPP) are not about free trade or trade at all but about forcing investor's rights onto countries in Asia and Europe.
A social revolution based on creating social justice across the globe as well as internalizing the costs of environmental damage into price-cost scenarios is the only chance our species has of avoiding catastrophe. We know that the current dominant model is pushing natrual systems towards the brink but those who want to retain the current model of wealth concentration and the 'vile maxim' Smith referred to don't care. The are programmed to think in terms of short term agendas and not longer term decay.
As for Williamson, he's a right wing economist who championed the WC. Noam Chomsky pretty well deconstructs the WC in this 1999 essay:
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/NeoliberalismPOP_Chom.html
More: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/nov…
And yet one can just as easily find links such as these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-was-the-washington-consensus.htm#didyoukno…
https://piie.com/publications/papers/williamson0904-2.pdf
And of course if I wanted to source info about Agenda 21, I would also find a whole heap of information, including those who claim it is some type of deep, dark, rapacious conspiracy would I not?
Such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/agenda-21-revealed-you-need-to-know-this/
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400
'Where is the evidence that a social revolution is beneficial to the planet?'
Who cares for the planet. It is all about US, homo sapiens.
But I, too, have my doubts, of course. E.g. about the process of social revolution that lead to voting rights for Stupids2.
Williamson is a right wing economist who works for a corporate funded right wing think tank. The Washington Consensus (whose consensus? Corporate and political classes in Washington and its proxies) is pretty well dead anyway, at least in South America where the IMF and World Bank have been sent packing.
And there's no conspiracy behind nakedly predatory corporate activities, the governments they own and the destruction that occurs in their wake. NAFTA was part of the WC. TTOP and TPP - if they are really ever ratified - will be extensions of the WC. That most of the world does not want the WC doesn't matter so long as the rich and privileged groups want it.
Stu2 is stupid, that is for sure. He'll buy into anything his corporate-state media tells him.
BTW, the Wiki link stupid put up here is hilarious. The opening line, that the WC is "a set of 10 economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.–based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury Department" is both ironic and funny. One woudl think that Washington planners and corporation aim t reduce poverty and create more egalitarian societies. Read what former economic hit man John Perkins has to say about the WC and the methods used to coerce poor nations into accepting the terms of the WC and the picture becomes clear. That stupid would paste any of this bullshit up here shows how dumbed down he is.
None of these institutions have worked to alleviate poverty. Instead, the first two function as proxies for the third, and through structural adjustment policies and austerity programs they have driven massive poverty and wealth concentration throughout the places they have operated. Williamson's WC is similar to the programs pushed by the Chicago Boys (Friedman, Hayak etc) in ostensible dictatorships in South America (and in eastern Europe later through Sachs) involving shock therapy concomitant with deregulation, spending cuts on programs that benefit the poor and the environment, and wealth concentration although the argument, never justified, is that economies under shock therapy eventually 'raise all boats' (it turns out that the only boats ' raised' are yachts).
Bolivia was one of the experiments of the WC that failed miserably, with companies like Bechtel fleeing with their tail tucked firmly between their legs.
I won't waste any more time on a person who essentially believes any crap that the mainstream media sticks in front of his face.
On, and finally I forgot to describe what should be patently obvious by now: the real aim of the WC. That is to repatriate wealth and resources from the LDC to the DC of the north. George Kennan, a senior US planner under Truman essentially said what the US should do in 1948 and that is to 'maintain a disparity in wealth' between the poor nations and the United States. To do that he went on to say that the US should 'ignore noble ideas such as democracy promotion and altruism and thin in straight power concepts'. This was in 1948; essentially a liberal, Kennan was fired for being too far to the left in 1951. In 2004, aged almost 100 but still well respected in policy circles, Kennan said that he was worried about developments in South America (i.e. the eviction of the IMF and WB from South America and a move towards more leftist governments) because, as he said, 'it threatened' the control and supply or our resources. 'Our' is the operative word; the resources and wealth of these nations are 'ours', meaning those of US investors, even though they happen to lie in the lands of other countries. In this vein the aims of the WC become clear: the US owns the world by right; they have the right therefore to oppose any measures countries may take to control their own resources and be in charge of their own internal decision making processes. I've read enough planning documents to know that the real threat to US corporations and elites is independent nationalism. The WC was devised essentially to ensure that the US was able to keep its thumb on other countries whose wealth they want to control.
Read some declassified state planning documents some time stupid, as well as the neocon PNAC manifesto and the real agendas become patently clear.
"Where is the evidence that a social revolution is beneficial to the planet?"
The removal of the Feudal System isn't evidence for that?!?!?
Which feudal system are you referring to Wow?
The feudal system that we had. You DID do history, didn't you, Stupid? Or were you home"Schooled"?
What were the drawbacks of the feudal system, what kind of social revolution ended it, what were the effects of the change on people's lives, and what were the benefits ensuing from the change?
Having elucidated this detail, now explain how this example of history applies to the marxist ideal of tearing down society in order to replace it with a supreme soviet whose authority will be used to ensure everybody's thoughts are in-line with "correct" political thinking?
Specifically, please enunciate the benefits we will enjoy once we are legally obliged to refrain from dissent against, for example, the assertion that multiculturalism is a good thing.
"What were the drawbacks of the feudal system"
Rampant poverty, lawlessness. But maybe you can describe the bit of it that makes it a good system? Of course, if this were acceptable, then "failed" communism can also be claimed good by a similar process.
Maybe you can tell us if it was so good why it is no longer in the world?
"what kind of social revolution ended it"
Emancipation of serfs from property status. Duh.
Apparently YOU didn't do history.
"how explain how this example of history applies to the marxist ideal of tearing down society in order to replace it with a supreme soviet "
Please explain why you thought pulling this turd of a theory from your own anus would constitute an actual reality? Marxist ideal is NOT that, retard.
PLEASE stop listening to 1960s US anti-communist propaganda. It's hella old and hella wrong.
"please enunciate the benefits we will enjoy once we are legally obliged to refrain from dissent against..."
Please enunciate where you pulled THIS one from, if not from the same cloacal opening as the previous turditious exposition of yours, and also what benefits we enjoy from the dissent you claim in your ignorance and paranoia.