By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This morning, we see the news that we've all been expecting, i.e. Braverman gone.
Aside from holding some "extreme" views on what constitutes "hate", her crime is clearly that of trying to do a Brutus on Rishi (a bit like he did with Boris).
The Tories will forgive almost anything except their own people showing the world what their club is like from the inside. Cruella has done that and has paid the price.
Her next appearance will be a challenge for the leadership.
In the event that she wins, I will be moving abroad for a few years because even the politics in my other "official" country are not as toxic as hers.
1
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry (n/t) on 17:27 - Nov 23 with 732 views
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 17:18 - Nov 23 by saint901
Thank you - I'll look up Mr Tubbs.
I'm not claiming that evolution is the whole answer or perhaps even the final answer. There are certainly gaps in how a semi intelligent ape evolved and then evolved again into man. It's also clear that the humans we are today is the surviving strain from a number of of failed attempts to find a model that works.
There are also of course various theories about whether the "sudden" (i.e. less than 40,000 generations), increase in brain power were the result of biological accident or outside interference. Look no further than Arthur C Clarke's 2001 for a novelised example of how that might work.
So I don't dismiss the seeding or interference arguments completely, it's just that there is more evidence for life being endemic on Earth and being able to play the long game in terms of failures and successes.
Intelligent design is perhaps more towards the seeding end of the alternatives, i.e. we were placed upon the planet by a space travelling species and granted our gifts of intelligence. Back in the 70's Van Daniken was keen on this and I read pretty much all of his stuff but he eventually started to believe his own publicity and lost the plot (and me as an interested reader).
Religion is also a very difficult area. Clarke observed that any sufficiently advanced race would appear to less advanced races as gods. So a "supreme entity" could well be some super advanced species that we are unable to comprehend. I'd refer you a novel by Philip K Dick called VALIS which explores this.
I admire people who have faith because I've that sustain those people through some very difficult times. In many ways I'm envious that they have something which gives them strength and hope.
I generally disapprove of religion. If a supreme entity is indeed unknowable, then why should the words of a human be seen as anything other than their own words?
Again a couple of examples. The first editions of the bible that were based on the Dead Sea scrolls (writings found in caves and dated to a century after Christ) omitted several "books". there are theories as to why they were omitted but local politics certainly had a say. So here we are at the outset of Christianity and already political decisions as saying what the great unwashed should believe.
The King James bible widely used in the UK was produced at a time when our experiment in a republic ended and we re-installed a king. That bible discusses at length the divine right of kings to rule and sermons at the time were directed at that message. It was a mass propaganda campaign and not the "word of God".
All conspiracy theory has a grain of truth. The problem is that often that grain of truth is planted and becomes the only fruit we are allowed. Organised religion was at one time a conspiracy theory of course and look where that is.
I do of course wish that people approached such issues with the same cynical attitude I do. The truth is that there are out there many, many people who are better thinkers with better minds than mine who are able to articulate their thoughts and who have reached a different conclusion than mine. I can add nothing to their lives.
There are some who are perhaps less good thinkers than me (not many I suspect) and there I think I feel (a little) obliged to point out some tools that could be deployed when they want to consider something. One is to search for facts and verify the sources.
One of the evils of religion of all kinds is that a few lead the many. IN days when literacy was in single digit percentages, that was inevitable. Today literacy in the UK is north of 99% and people have access to more information, more tools and more sources than ever before. Use them. Don;t be lazy and just accept what is presented to you.
I have no views on Pompey FC or its fans.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 17:29 - Nov 23 with 732 views
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 17:18 - Nov 23 by saint901
Thank you - I'll look up Mr Tubbs.
I'm not claiming that evolution is the whole answer or perhaps even the final answer. There are certainly gaps in how a semi intelligent ape evolved and then evolved again into man. It's also clear that the humans we are today is the surviving strain from a number of of failed attempts to find a model that works.
There are also of course various theories about whether the "sudden" (i.e. less than 40,000 generations), increase in brain power were the result of biological accident or outside interference. Look no further than Arthur C Clarke's 2001 for a novelised example of how that might work.
So I don't dismiss the seeding or interference arguments completely, it's just that there is more evidence for life being endemic on Earth and being able to play the long game in terms of failures and successes.
Intelligent design is perhaps more towards the seeding end of the alternatives, i.e. we were placed upon the planet by a space travelling species and granted our gifts of intelligence. Back in the 70's Van Daniken was keen on this and I read pretty much all of his stuff but he eventually started to believe his own publicity and lost the plot (and me as an interested reader).
Religion is also a very difficult area. Clarke observed that any sufficiently advanced race would appear to less advanced races as gods. So a "supreme entity" could well be some super advanced species that we are unable to comprehend. I'd refer you a novel by Philip K Dick called VALIS which explores this.
I admire people who have faith because I've that sustain those people through some very difficult times. In many ways I'm envious that they have something which gives them strength and hope.
I generally disapprove of religion. If a supreme entity is indeed unknowable, then why should the words of a human be seen as anything other than their own words?
Again a couple of examples. The first editions of the bible that were based on the Dead Sea scrolls (writings found in caves and dated to a century after Christ) omitted several "books". there are theories as to why they were omitted but local politics certainly had a say. So here we are at the outset of Christianity and already political decisions as saying what the great unwashed should believe.
The King James bible widely used in the UK was produced at a time when our experiment in a republic ended and we re-installed a king. That bible discusses at length the divine right of kings to rule and sermons at the time were directed at that message. It was a mass propaganda campaign and not the "word of God".
All conspiracy theory has a grain of truth. The problem is that often that grain of truth is planted and becomes the only fruit we are allowed. Organised religion was at one time a conspiracy theory of course and look where that is.
I do of course wish that people approached such issues with the same cynical attitude I do. The truth is that there are out there many, many people who are better thinkers with better minds than mine who are able to articulate their thoughts and who have reached a different conclusion than mine. I can add nothing to their lives.
There are some who are perhaps less good thinkers than me (not many I suspect) and there I think I feel (a little) obliged to point out some tools that could be deployed when they want to consider something. One is to search for facts and verify the sources.
One of the evils of religion of all kinds is that a few lead the many. IN days when literacy was in single digit percentages, that was inevitable. Today literacy in the UK is north of 99% and people have access to more information, more tools and more sources than ever before. Use them. Don;t be lazy and just accept what is presented to you.
I have no views on Pompey FC or its fans.
Pale Rider has managed to acquire a more nuanced view from you which is good to see, although you still exhibit something of the smug atheist about you - is there any other kind of atheist others have asked! I would suggest reading Tom Holland's "Dominion" where the value of Christianity on our society is shown throughout history, even in tolerance towards those with differing viewpoints.
Organised religion, not to be confused with faith has caused many problems in the past, but is not the pressing problem now, the response to covid showed us a new kind of absolutism where not wearing a mask, not adhering to Lockdown and not getting vaccinated would not be tolerated - this global elitist technocracy is the very real and present danger today.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 18:33 - Nov 23 with 709 views
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 17:46 - Nov 23 by Jellybaby
Pale Rider has managed to acquire a more nuanced view from you which is good to see, although you still exhibit something of the smug atheist about you - is there any other kind of atheist others have asked! I would suggest reading Tom Holland's "Dominion" where the value of Christianity on our society is shown throughout history, even in tolerance towards those with differing viewpoints.
Organised religion, not to be confused with faith has caused many problems in the past, but is not the pressing problem now, the response to covid showed us a new kind of absolutism where not wearing a mask, not adhering to Lockdown and not getting vaccinated would not be tolerated - this global elitist technocracy is the very real and present danger today.
"smug atheist" - I'll add that to the list of things I've been called. I think to be accurate, smug agnostic is perhaps closer to the truth.
I've not read the book mentioned. If your description is accurate I would have a prejudice before I picked it up.
I do not regard "Christianity" as superior or better or worse than any other religion, organised or not. There is good to be found in all of their core tenets. The problems come where bad people or at least people with ambition that means it will be bad for those who want to oppose that ambition, start to use the levers of religion to promote or support their point of view.
History tells us that people of different faiths can get along perfectly well until somebody gets greedy (or is insane) or wants a divorce. Then it has a tendency to be used as an excuse for mass murder.
Mixing religion with a disease which is proven to have caused millions of deaths? Linking it with civil measures designed to mitigate the death toll? No.
"global elitist technocracy" is another new one. Who are they please? Is this just a handy label that can be expanded to include anybody? Is this the group that wants to reduce the population by several billion in order to preserve resources for themselves? The group that wants to take us back to medieval serfdom (with added computers)?
As far as I can see, not wearing a mask, not adhering to lockdown, not getting vaccinated, were all choices that could be made so long as you were aware of the consequences. I have friends who were all of the above and thankfully, they're all still alive but they valued their body/principles over what society wanted and lived with the fact that there were certain things they could not do during the pandemic. It was inconvenient but not lethal for them.
Just for info one of them is a research scientist at a well known facility to the north of Salisbury, lay minister and choose not to be vaccinated. He did however wear a mask (because he did most of the time at work anyway) and was happy to include Gov't advice in his sermons as well as pointing out the alternative.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 20:16 - Nov 27 with 521 views
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 09:52 - Nov 27 by saint901
"smug atheist" - I'll add that to the list of things I've been called. I think to be accurate, smug agnostic is perhaps closer to the truth.
I've not read the book mentioned. If your description is accurate I would have a prejudice before I picked it up.
I do not regard "Christianity" as superior or better or worse than any other religion, organised or not. There is good to be found in all of their core tenets. The problems come where bad people or at least people with ambition that means it will be bad for those who want to oppose that ambition, start to use the levers of religion to promote or support their point of view.
History tells us that people of different faiths can get along perfectly well until somebody gets greedy (or is insane) or wants a divorce. Then it has a tendency to be used as an excuse for mass murder.
Mixing religion with a disease which is proven to have caused millions of deaths? Linking it with civil measures designed to mitigate the death toll? No.
"global elitist technocracy" is another new one. Who are they please? Is this just a handy label that can be expanded to include anybody? Is this the group that wants to reduce the population by several billion in order to preserve resources for themselves? The group that wants to take us back to medieval serfdom (with added computers)?
As far as I can see, not wearing a mask, not adhering to lockdown, not getting vaccinated, were all choices that could be made so long as you were aware of the consequences. I have friends who were all of the above and thankfully, they're all still alive but they valued their body/principles over what society wanted and lived with the fact that there were certain things they could not do during the pandemic. It was inconvenient but not lethal for them.
Just for info one of them is a research scientist at a well known facility to the north of Salisbury, lay minister and choose not to be vaccinated. He did however wear a mask (because he did most of the time at work anyway) and was happy to include Gov't advice in his sermons as well as pointing out the alternative.
I confess 901, I am much too hard on you, not because I dislike you, the opposite is true, i am immensely impressed by you, you are clearly a man of substance who remains sure footed in a world that has lost it's collective senses.
Agnostic, of course, never too far to the left or to the right, the post enlightened Englishman has to drive a middle ground, while others around are crying foul, they will keep a stiff upper lip, there is nothing to see here, all is normal. Others can be dismissed as zealots or fools, but moderates are safely ensconced within the safe perimeters of a consensus bias. If you value your reputation don't veer beyond that Overton window.
Sadly for those who are bedded to argumentum ad populum, they fail to understand that the truth always emerges from the edges, thus they are the last to know when they have been subjected to a scam of outrageous proportions...
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 12:41 - Nov 28 with 484 views
Far from being sure footed, I take the middle ground often because I lack the information or the knowledge or the capacity to understand some of the issues here. I also lack time to investigate fully some issue due to work commitments but will do so when those obligations are less.
Instead I look at some issues in terms of "big picture" and try to balance probabilities.
Let's look at the conspiracy theory that says the "global elite" (still waiting to be told who these are) want the present population of the world (7.9bn) to reduce by 3bn. This was a number claimed to have been uttered by Bill Gates but for which no evidence exists.
However, let's say that was true and the aim is to have a population of 5bn. Let's also say that this population will exist for the benefit of those with a high IQ (because that is an indicator of success and therefore wealth). High IQ distribution in the world puts around 2% in that top category. That's 100m people.
So the aim is that 100m people are served by 4.9bn people. A ruling class of 2% operating the planet and suppressing 98% of the population.
Or put another way just 1 "ruler" to every 5 square km of the earth.
In the UK (and I know the theory says a "global" elite) that's 1.4m people trying to control/oppress/rule over 68,6m.
Even if truth comes in from the edges, the numbers here just make no sense.
Until they do and until I get some answers to questions that come from more than a bunch of discredited pseudoscientists or until we see some of the vast collection of people working for the "elite" come forward with evidence that there is a plan, I'll stick to what seems sensible to me.
If I'm wrong, you'll have the chance to say "I told you so" but we'll both be grounds under the heel of the "elite" so it won't really matter.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 20:24 - Nov 28 with 470 views
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 12:41 - Nov 28 by saint901
And again Mr Jellybaby, I have to disagree.
Far from being sure footed, I take the middle ground often because I lack the information or the knowledge or the capacity to understand some of the issues here. I also lack time to investigate fully some issue due to work commitments but will do so when those obligations are less.
Instead I look at some issues in terms of "big picture" and try to balance probabilities.
Let's look at the conspiracy theory that says the "global elite" (still waiting to be told who these are) want the present population of the world (7.9bn) to reduce by 3bn. This was a number claimed to have been uttered by Bill Gates but for which no evidence exists.
However, let's say that was true and the aim is to have a population of 5bn. Let's also say that this population will exist for the benefit of those with a high IQ (because that is an indicator of success and therefore wealth). High IQ distribution in the world puts around 2% in that top category. That's 100m people.
So the aim is that 100m people are served by 4.9bn people. A ruling class of 2% operating the planet and suppressing 98% of the population.
Or put another way just 1 "ruler" to every 5 square km of the earth.
In the UK (and I know the theory says a "global" elite) that's 1.4m people trying to control/oppress/rule over 68,6m.
Even if truth comes in from the edges, the numbers here just make no sense.
Until they do and until I get some answers to questions that come from more than a bunch of discredited pseudoscientists or until we see some of the vast collection of people working for the "elite" come forward with evidence that there is a plan, I'll stick to what seems sensible to me.
If I'm wrong, you'll have the chance to say "I told you so" but we'll both be grounds under the heel of the "elite" so it won't really matter.
I'm not interested in bragging rights 901. If the world goes to Hell in a handcart then we will all disappear down the same memory hole I am sure.
Your numbers are skewed 901, if the world is made up of 5 types of people in this particular instance;
Predators at the top, who control everything. Strivers, who aim for the top and inadvertently often end up doing the dirty work of the Ruling class for them. Normies - who keep their heads down and don't question the status quo. Doubters - who can smell the BS, but don't have the time or inclination to deep dive. Rebels - who call it out and don't care about the consequences.
The predator class fund everything, they don't need to say much, they set the agenda because they control the money and the information. The strivers do their bidding with out knowing because their wages depend on it. The Normies keep their heads down getting on with their own lives. The Doubters don't want to get cancelled, so they keep their misgivings to themselves. The Rebels encompass every anti establishment crank that ever lived, so they are easily discredited as loonies. That's how the system works.
This interview by Ivor Cummings may be useful to you;
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
