Everyone did it, until it was decided - largely because of Enlightenment values - that it was morally (and often economically) unsustainable.
I’m not even sure I’d call it fundamentally evil, unless one believes humans to be fundamentally evil.
Did they?
If they could, most attempted it to some degree.
I'm mulling this over, and I don't think it's true. Not when you look to the individual level. Many historical empires did not have proper democracies even in the home country. To what extent to we hang that on the farmers, coopers, and joiners who rarely even set foot outside their own county? I hope you don't find this an overly pedantic question, because I think it plugs into fundamental questions about the dynamics that drive imperialism. Motives and opportunities vary widely within a society.
I think cultures that reach a certain size come into conflict with others, and seeking dominance where this is an option for them is normal human behaviour. The individual may not care about such things, but even small islands have been racked by inter tribal conflicts. Imperialism is only different in scale, and that's around ability to project power when the opportunity arises, technologically or otherwise. The precise details vary and some will be worse than others.
I won't call anything overly pedantic on PB, but I don't see the value of looking 'to the individual level'. Humans as a group vs humans as individuals react in different ways, like huge masses vs tiny particles.
Yes but again you're talking about what you think is a normal pattern for societies (I'm still dubious about that even) and mapping it to the individual level. The people who lead tend to be (in the neutral sense) extraordinary, and above the tribal level even those who actively fight are a small minority in almost all cases. Even in the 18th-20th century world of levees en masses and general conscription, it was still a minority under arms. The original thesis was that "Enlightenment values" have impaired imperialism because of a changing morality. That Enlightenment ethic, made concrete in documents such as The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the American Declaration of Independence, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, and the Geneva Conventions amongst others, emphasise individual agency and rights. Surely, in this spirit, it makes sense for us to then at least look through the lens of the individual and decide whether the evidence of inter-group conflict is really evidence about the nature of humans in general. And if the evidence isn't there, we needn't assume that this how people are.
The question is meaningful and not abstract. We have made huge improvements in the systems that govern us and the way we make our choices felt. Peace is attainable because, fundamentally, most people want it. It depresses me that someone can look at the behaviour of a minority and use it to draw conclusions about human nature when it seems, to me at least, that the conclusions really apply to societies and VERY much depends on the way those societies are organised. You only need to see the very variable levels of violence in the world today to know that this is true.
Staving another human's head in is, fundamentally, a waste of time and calories. Most people most of the time aren't inclined to try.
The instinct for dominance is within all of us, and competition between states is ultimately a product of this. It is not something that is limited to a wayward minority of violent individuals. Nor can it be overcome by thought and reason. It will always exist, as it is essentially the engine of evolution and human history. If a society tries to withdraw from this competition, it may succeed for a short while, but will eventually get defeated or colonialised by a stronger force.
You think violence between states is inevitable, but how about between towns? Are Blackpool and Preston destined to fight a war at some point? If not, why not?
Well this is a very interesting question, raising questions of when and at what scale groups coalesce. I think there are answers connected to levels of communication, scales at which politics can operate, shared history etc . But one which could be explored for hours.
Yes, you're getting into the bit I was trying to get at earlier, being the fact that so much depends on the way society is organised. Implicit in that was the idea that the methods of organisation have changed and -- dare I use the P word? Yes, I dare -- progress is a good thing here. Communications are ~instant across the world and we're at the point now where someone can speak to you in a language you don't understand yet you can get a live translation of their words. You can literally converse with people where you don't share a language or even a language from the same family. Scales are now global, which is why I think we may have a future (and we are not there yet, nowhere near) where interstate violence may be as rare as intercity violence is these days (here).
The journey from ‘empires aren’t inherently bad and ours was bloody good by the way’ to ‘the USSR was awful and was so an empire’ has been remarkably swift.
Empires are bad. The USSR was an empire.
What's the problem with that?
Or are you saying that the various minorities and nations which endured that should all shut up and glory in being Russian?
Especially since Russia still seem soo be in the Empire business.
I’m saying any discussion that is specifically about empires and imperialism that descends into Stalin was evil and an emperor is dumb.
Plenty of people from left and right have pointed out that Mao and Stalin had a lot in common with absolute monarchies - perhaps more than with socialism.
Simon Sebag Montefiore has definitely not entered the chat.
Was he the one leaving crappy reviews of his rivals on Amazon?
Edit: Nah, I see that was Orlando Figes. Naughty boy.
Figes is a bit of a fool but sill an interesting historian
Sebag-montefiore is in a different league. His two books - the Red Tsar - and Young Stalin - are absolutely superb narrative histories with some amazing new research and details. I have heard he can write 3000-4000 words a day. All needing very little editing. THAT is impressive
He’s also a pretty good TV presenter
His big disappointment, for me, was Jerusalem: the Book. Such a fantastic subject yet he meanders. I think he prefers evil commie imperialists as subjects
Everyone did it, until it was decided - largely because of Enlightenment values - that it was morally (and often economically) unsustainable.
I’m not even sure I’d call it fundamentally evil, unless one believes humans to be fundamentally evil.
Did they?
If they could, most attempted it to some degree.
I'm mulling this over, and I don't think it's true. Not when you look to the individual level. Many historical empires did not have proper democracies even in the home country. To what extent to we hang that on the farmers, coopers, and joiners who rarely even set foot outside their own county? I hope you don't find this an overly pedantic question, because I think it plugs into fundamental questions about the dynamics that drive imperialism. Motives and opportunities vary widely within a society.
I think cultures that reach a certain size come into conflict with others, and seeking dominance where this is an option for them is normal human behaviour. The individual may not care about such things, but even small islands have been racked by inter tribal conflicts. Imperialism is only different in scale, and that's around ability to project power when the opportunity arises, technologically or otherwise. The precise details vary and some will be worse than others.
I won't call anything overly pedantic on PB, but I don't see the value of looking 'to the individual level'. Humans as a group vs humans as individuals react in different ways, like huge masses vs tiny particles.
Yes but again you're talking about what you think is a normal pattern for societies (I'm still dubious about that even) and mapping it to the individual level. The people who lead tend to be (in the neutral sense) extraordinary, and above the tribal level even those who actively fight are a small minority in almost all cases. Even in the 18th-20th century world of levees en masses and general conscription, it was still a minority under arms. The original thesis was that "Enlightenment values" have impaired imperialism because of a changing morality. That Enlightenment ethic, made concrete in documents such as The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the American Declaration of Independence, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, and the Geneva Conventions amongst others, emphasise individual agency and rights. Surely, in this spirit, it makes sense for us to then at least look through the lens of the individual and decide whether the evidence of inter-group conflict is really evidence about the nature of humans in general. And if the evidence isn't there, we needn't assume that this how people are.
The question is meaningful and not abstract. We have made huge improvements in the systems that govern us and the way we make our choices felt. Peace is attainable because, fundamentally, most people want it. It depresses me that someone can look at the behaviour of a minority and use it to draw conclusions about human nature when it seems, to me at least, that the conclusions really apply to societies and VERY much depends on the way those societies are organised. You only need to see the very variable levels of violence in the world today to know that this is true.
Staving another human's head in is, fundamentally, a waste of time and calories. Most people most of the time aren't inclined to try.
The instinct for dominance is within all of us, and competition between states is ultimately a product of this. It is not something that is limited to a wayward minority of violent individuals. Nor can it be overcome by thought and reason. It will always exist, as it is essentially the engine of evolution and human history. If a society tries to withdraw from this competition, it may succeed for a short while, but will eventually get defeated or colonialised by a stronger force.
You think violence between states is inevitable, but how about between towns? Are Blackpool and Preston destined to fight a war at some point? If not, why not?
When I lived in Malmesbury, if people from the town bumped into people from Tetbury, on a Friday night, there was always a ruck.
Something about a battle in the English Civil War, where both towns were sending contingents to the same side and then one switched IIRC.
Doubtless, but it's probably quite rare to be organised and popularly sanctioned. This is my point from earlier: violence is the exception.
NEW: PM's loyalists have "safety mechanism" on no confidence letters:
"5 or 10 of the letters are submitted by loyalists. When Brady hits the magic number, he calls around everyone to ask if they wish to withdraw. At that point, we know we’re in trouble"
The journey from ‘empires aren’t inherently bad and ours was bloody good by the way’ to ‘the USSR was awful and was so an empire’ has been remarkably swift.
Empires are bad. The USSR was an empire.
What's the problem with that?
Or are you saying that the various minorities and nations which endured that should all shut up and glory in being Russian?
Especially since Russia still seem soo be in the Empire business.
I’m saying any discussion that is specifically about empires and imperialism that descends into Stalin was evil and an emperor is dumb.
Plenty of people from left and right have pointed out that Mao and Stalin had a lot in common with absolute monarchies - perhaps more than with socialism.
Simon Sebag Montefiore has definitely not entered the chat.
Was he the one leaving crappy reviews of his rivals on Amazon?
That could have been Orlando Figes.
There are some right weirdos specialise in Russian history.
Simply for process of elimination - what was your specialisation?
The journey from ‘empires aren’t inherently bad and ours was bloody good by the way’ to ‘the USSR was awful and was so an empire’ has been remarkably swift.
Empires are bad. The USSR was an empire.
What's the problem with that?
Or are you saying that the various minorities and nations which endured that should all shut up and glory in being Russian?
Especially since Russia still seem soo be in the Empire business.
I’m saying any discussion that is specifically about empires and imperialism that descends into Stalin was evil and an emperor is dumb.
He was literally known as “the Red Tsar” and claimed the title for himself
EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 50, No. 5. 1998,
"The People Need a Tsar': The Emergence of National Bolshevism as Stalinist Ideology, 1931-1941
“Equally important--and distinct from the cult--is the development of a state-oriented patriotic ideology reminiscent of tsarist 'great power' (velikoderzhaunye) and russocentrie traditions, something which M. N. Ryutin referred to as 'national Bolshevism'." Statements of Stalin's typically associated with the personality cult-'don't forget that we are living in Russia, the land of the tsars ... the Russian pcople like it when one person stands at the head of the state and 'the people need a tsar”
Bombshell picture shows Boris Johnson holding can of beer at lockdown birthday party
Sources said that pictures taken by the official No10 photographer have been handed over to Scotland Yard for their investigation into the Downing Street parties - including one of the PM with a can of beer
That was always going to be the killer blow, Boris holding a beer or glass of champagne at one of these parties.
Not so sure. We have pix of Starmer drinking from a beer bottle with mates during lockdown - did nothing
Boris has survived this far, I don’t think an image of him suckling on a Heineken is the killer blow. We all now know he went to parties, so this is not OMFG, not any more
Splashed on front pages "He partied while we suffered" is very damaging. Until now it's all been brushed off as potentially work related events but a picture will really be worth a thousand words.
If the Daily Mail gets the picture they will publish with a highly damaging headline and it will hit home with lots of natural small c conservatives who pride themselves on playing by the rules.
Yes maybe, I just wonder - from polls and Southend - if partygate has run out of steam, entirely
I mean, if you are outraged by Boris and Co breaking lockdown, then surely you’ve made the mental leap, already, to supporting someone else, or abstaining. Or you have forgiven him, or you think Labour etc are still an inferior choice. Will a photo really make all the difference with another chunk of the electorate?
I have my doubts. It might depend on the vividness of the image. If he is quietly enjoying a beer - as in the Starmer photo - I think the damage is minimal
If he is hoisting it to the camera and saying whey-hey!!! In his inimitable style, then yes it could be another nasty blow
Point of order: we have learned nothing from the Southend West by-election. Due to circumstances of which we are all well aware, the Conservative candidate faced no meaningful opposition at all in a non-contest with a derisory turnout.
The polls are a little more interesting. I'm not at all sure what's most responsible for the Labour lead not being larger than it actually is: that much of the public is still not sold on Labour and/or Starmer, or that many recent polls already place the Tories close to their floor of support. It's worth reminding ourselves at this juncture that the Conservative Party has won more than 30% of the vote in every UK GE it has ever contested, going all the way back to 1835. Even John Major in 1997 managed just shy of 31%.
No we learned our resident Trump apologist and Lord Ashcraft biography fan was actually a beautiful and unique snowflake.
Everyone did it, until it was decided - largely because of Enlightenment values - that it was morally (and often economically) unsustainable.
I’m not even sure I’d call it fundamentally evil, unless one believes humans to be fundamentally evil.
Did they?
If they could, most attempted it to some degree.
I'm mulling this over, and I don't think it's true. Not when you look to the individual level. Many historical empires did not have proper democracies even in the home country. To what extent to we hang that on the farmers, coopers, and joiners who rarely even set foot outside their own county? I hope you don't find this an overly pedantic question, because I think it plugs into fundamental questions about the dynamics that drive imperialism. Motives and opportunities vary widely within a society.
I think cultures that reach a certain size come into conflict with others, and seeking dominance where this is an option for them is normal human behaviour. The individual may not care about such things, but even small islands have been racked by inter tribal conflicts. Imperialism is only different in scale, and that's around ability to project power when the opportunity arises, technologically or otherwise. The precise details vary and some will be worse than others.
I won't call anything overly pedantic on PB, but I don't see the value of looking 'to the individual level'. Humans as a group vs humans as individuals react in different ways, like huge masses vs tiny particles.
Yes but again you're talking about what you think is a normal pattern for societies (I'm still dubious about that even) and mapping it to the individual level. The people who lead tend to be (in the neutral sense) extraordinary, and above the tribal level even those who actively fight are a small minority in almost all cases. Even in the 18th-20th century world of levees en masses and general conscription, it was still a minority under arms. The original thesis was that "Enlightenment values" have impaired imperialism because of a changing morality. That Enlightenment ethic, made concrete in documents such as The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the American Declaration of Independence, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, and the Geneva Conventions amongst others, emphasise individual agency and rights. Surely, in this spirit, it makes sense for us to then at least look through the lens of the individual and decide whether the evidence of inter-group conflict is really evidence about the nature of humans in general. And if the evidence isn't there, we needn't assume that this how people are.
The question is meaningful and not abstract. We have made huge improvements in the systems that govern us and the way we make our choices felt. Peace is attainable because, fundamentally, most people want it. It depresses me that someone can look at the behaviour of a minority and use it to draw conclusions about human nature when it seems, to me at least, that the conclusions really apply to societies and VERY much depends on the way those societies are organised. You only need to see the very variable levels of violence in the world today to know that this is true.
Staving another human's head in is, fundamentally, a waste of time and calories. Most people most of the time aren't inclined to try.
The instinct for dominance is within all of us, and competition between states is ultimately a product of this. It is not something that is limited to a wayward minority of violent individuals. Nor can it be overcome by thought and reason. It will always exist, as it is essentially the engine of evolution and human history. If a society tries to withdraw from this competition, it may succeed for a short while, but will eventually get defeated or colonialised by a stronger force.
You think violence between states is inevitable, but how about between towns? Are Blackpool and Preston destined to fight a war at some point? If not, why not?
There isn't any equivalence between Blackpool and Preston and, say, the UK and Russia. But my broader point is that war is made inevitable by competition for scarce resources, and the fact that we have evolved for millions of years to prepare for such competition. It seems very unlikely that this process could ever be hacked or disrupted in such a way that war never occurs again - but it is inevitable that people will try, as it offers hope that we can be set free from the risk of avoidable death.
If the aim is to avoid war, it seems to me that a better starting point is some acknowledgement of the processes that drive competition between states. This may have led us to better decisions, for instance in how we dealt with Russia in the mid 2010s.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a strict Roman Catholic and the Pope and Vatican are opposed to contraception and the morning after pill, so his views are no surprise
His views as a private person should have no bearing on his responsibilities in govt. Much like the Queen who has official views and keeps her private views to herself.
Absolutely not. His constituents elected him knowing his views and there are plenty of socially conservative Roman Catholics still around in the UK who would agree with them and deserve some MPs to represent their views. He is a minority in holding them in Cabinet and in Parliament but he is entitled to express them.
The Queen of course is head of the Church of England not a Roman Catholic and not elected so a different matter
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a strict Roman Catholic and the Pope and Vatican are opposed to contraception and the morning after pill, so his views are no surprise
His views as a private person should have no bearing on his responsibilities in govt. Much like the Queen who has official views and keeps her private views to herself.
Absolutely not. His constituents elected him knowing his views and there are plenty of socially conservative Roman Catholics around in the UK who would agree with them and deserve some MPs to represent their views. He is a minority in holding them in Cabinet and in Parliament but he is entitled to express them.
The Queen of course is head of the Church of England not a Roman Catholic and not elected so a different matter
If his job clashes with his morals then he should resign it and allow someone else to do the job.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a strict Roman Catholic and the Pope and Vatican are opposed to contraception and the morning after pill, so his views are no surprise
His views as a private person should have no bearing on his responsibilities in govt. Much like the Queen who has official views and keeps her private views to herself.
Absolutely not. His constituents elected him knowing his views and there are plenty of socially conservative Roman Catholics around in the UK who would agree with them and deserve some MPs to represent their views. He is a minority in holding them in Cabinet and in Parliament but he is entitled to express them.
The Queen of course is head of the Church of England not a Roman Catholic and not elected so a different matter
If his job clashes with his morals then he should resign it and allow someone else to do the job.
Absolutely not. In any case there is no conflict between his job as an MP and position as Leader of the House and his morals. If he was Health Secretary there might be but he is not
NEW: PM's loyalists have "safety mechanism" on no confidence letters:
"5 or 10 of the letters are submitted by loyalists. When Brady hits the magic number, he calls around everyone to ask if they wish to withdraw. At that point, we know we’re in trouble"
Brady would surely know that some of those letters are from loyalists playing that game, since if they were not unquestionable loyalists how would Johnson be able to trust them to withdraw?
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a strict Roman Catholic and the Pope and Vatican are opposed to contraception and the morning after pill, so his views are no surprise
His views as a private person should have no bearing on his responsibilities in govt. Much like the Queen who has official views and keeps her private views to herself.
I don't wish to defend Rees-Mogg, but that's always struck me as a ridiculous view. As long as his views are not illegal, why should they not inform his responsibilities in government?
If we want somebody else with different views, we should vote somebody else in.
The journey from ‘empires aren’t inherently bad and ours was bloody good by the way’ to ‘the USSR was awful and was so an empire’ has been remarkably swift.
Empires are bad. The USSR was an empire.
What's the problem with that?
Or are you saying that the various minorities and nations which endured that should all shut up and glory in being Russian?
Especially since Russia still seem soo be in the Empire business.
I’m saying any discussion that is specifically about empires and imperialism that descends into Stalin was evil and an emperor is dumb.
Plenty of people from left and right have pointed out that Mao and Stalin had a lot in common with absolute monarchies - perhaps more than with socialism.
Simon Sebag Montefiore has definitely not entered the chat.
Was he the one leaving crappy reviews of his rivals on Amazon?
That could have been Orlando Figes.
There are some right weirdos specialise in Russian history.
Simply for process of elimination - what was your specialisation?
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a strict Roman Catholic and the Pope and Vatican are opposed to contraception and the morning after pill, so his views are no surprise
His views as a private person should have no bearing on his responsibilities in govt. Much like the Queen who has official views and keeps her private views to herself.
I don't wish to defend Rees-Mogg, but that's always struck me as a ridiculous view. As long as his views are not illegal, why should they not inform his responsibilities in government?
If you go on No 10 Flickr page you can see the No 10 photographer Andy Parsons was in Downing St on several of the major partygate dates- because he was taking official pics
If you go on No 10 Flickr page you can see the No 10 photographer Andy Parsons was in Downing St on several of the major partygate dates- because he was taking official pics
If you go on No 10 Flickr page you can see the No 10 photographer Andy Parsons was in Downing St on several of the major partygate dates- because he was taking official pics
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a strict Roman Catholic and the Pope and Vatican are opposed to contraception and the morning after pill, so his views are no surprise
His views as a private person should have no bearing on his responsibilities in govt. Much like the Queen who has official views and keeps her private views to herself.
I don't wish to defend Rees-Mogg, but that's always struck me as a ridiculous view. As long as his views are not illegal, why should they not inform his responsibilities in government?
[snip]
I disagree
So in your view, Charles Bradlaugh was wrong to let his religious views inform his policy positions?
Pence actually calling Trump out as unAmerican now. Will anyone listen?
Everyone except Trump's supporters.
Unfortunately everyone except Trump's supporters knew it anyway.
There is, apparently, quite a lot to dislike about Pence. But while it shouldn't be laudable that he found his own line not to cross so late, just think how much worse things might have been had he not done so and gone along with that part of the plan.
Notable too that like Aaron Bell, Gibb cites his belief that the Prime Minister hasn’t been truthful: “I am sorry to say that it is hard to see how it can be the case that the Prime Minister told the truth.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1489716880839426051
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
Ah my post was truncated.
I was going to say something of this order, even though I think Charles was a grotesque snob, MrEd a fascist apologist, and CasinoRoyale a young fogey with rage issues.
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
I’m sorry, my ass has just fallen off with my laughing at the idea of PB as a left leaning echo chamber.
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
Ah my post was truncated.
I was going to say something of this order, even though I think Charles was a grotesque snob, MrEd a fascist apologist, and CasinoRoyale a young fogey with rage issues.
It’s immensly important to know what grotesque snobs are thinking...
Sir Graham Brady is under no obligation to ask MPs who have submitted letters if they still want their letters to stand.
This strategy by Boris Johnson loyalists might be absolute fucking stupid.
That would be one of the funniest jokes in the history of skulduggery.
Is there a Darwin award in politics?
A Confedaracy award.
By breaking away and causing a civil war, they managed to halt the insertion of a protection for slavery into the constitution and caused its total abolition instead.
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
Ah my post was truncated.
I was going to say something of this order, even though I think Charles was a grotesque snob, MrEd a fascist apologist, and CasinoRoyale a young fogey with rage issues.
It’s immensly important to know what grotesque snobs are thinking...
My cousin knows many more grotesque snobs than you.
Everyone did it, until it was decided - largely because of Enlightenment values - that it was morally (and often economically) unsustainable.
I’m not even sure I’d call it fundamentally evil, unless one believes humans to be fundamentally evil.
Did they?
If they could, most attempted it to some degree.
I'm mulling this over, and I don't think it's true. Not when you look to the individual level. Many historical empires did not have proper democracies even in the home country. To what extent to we hang that on the farmers, coopers, and joiners who rarely even set foot outside their own county? I hope you don't find this an overly pedantic question, because I think it plugs into fundamental questions about the dynamics that drive imperialism. Motives and opportunities vary widely within a society.
I think cultures that reach a certain size come into conflict with others, and seeking dominance where this is an option for them is normal human behaviour. The individual may not care about such things, but even small islands have been racked by inter tribal conflicts. Imperialism is only different in scale, and that's around ability to project power when the opportunity arises, technologically or otherwise. The precise details vary and some will be worse than others.
I won't call anything overly pedantic on PB, but I don't see the value of looking 'to the individual level'. Humans as a group vs humans as individuals react in different ways, like huge masses vs tiny particles.
Yes but again you're talking about what you think is a normal pattern for societies (I'm still dubious about that even) and mapping it to the individual level. The people who lead tend to be (in the neutral sense) extraordinary, and above the tribal level even those who actively fight are a small minority in almost all cases. Even in the 18th-20th century world of levees en masses and general conscription, it was still a minority under arms. The original thesis was that "Enlightenment values" have impaired imperialism because of a changing morality. That Enlightenment ethic, made concrete in documents such as The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the American Declaration of Independence, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, and the Geneva Conventions amongst others, emphasise individual agency and rights. Surely, in this spirit, it makes sense for us to then at least look through the lens of the individual and decide whether the evidence of inter-group conflict is really evidence about the nature of humans in general. And if the evidence isn't there, we needn't assume that this how people are.
The question is meaningful and not abstract. We have made huge improvements in the systems that govern us and the way we make our choices felt. Peace is attainable because, fundamentally, most people want it. It depresses me that someone can look at the behaviour of a minority and use it to draw conclusions about human nature when it seems, to me at least, that the conclusions really apply to societies and VERY much depends on the way those societies are organised. You only need to see the very variable levels of violence in the world today to know that this is true.
Staving another human's head in is, fundamentally, a waste of time and calories. Most people most of the time aren't inclined to try.
The instinct for dominance is within all of us, and competition between states is ultimately a product of this. It is not something that is limited to a wayward minority of violent individuals. Nor can it be overcome by thought and reason. It will always exist, as it is essentially the engine of evolution and human history. If a society tries to withdraw from this competition, it may succeed for a short while, but will eventually get defeated or colonialised by a stronger force.
You think violence between states is inevitable, but how about between towns? Are Blackpool and Preston destined to fight a war at some point? If not, why not?
There isn't any equivalence between Blackpool and Preston and, say, the UK and Russia. But my broader point is that war is made inevitable by competition for scarce resources, and the fact that we have evolved for millions of years to prepare for such competition. It seems very unlikely that this process could ever be hacked or disrupted in such a way that war never occurs again - but it is inevitable that people will try, as it offers hope that we can be set free from the risk of avoidable death.
If the aim is to avoid war, it seems to me that a better starting point is some acknowledgement of the processes that drive competition between states. This may have led us to better decisions, for instance in how we dealt with Russia in the mid 2010s.
So there's 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukraine border because... Putin is hungry?
About Blackpool and Preston having "no equivalence" with UK and Russia. That's the claim. The question is why that is the case. Why, in your sociobiological explanation aren't people in Preston and Blackpool "competing" in the same way?
Pence actually calling Trump out as unAmerican now. Will anyone listen?
Everyone except Trump's supporters.
Unfortunately everyone except Trump's supporters knew it anyway.
There is, apparently, quite a lot to dislike about Pence. But while it shouldn't be laudable that he found his own line not to cross so late, just think how much worse things might have been had he not done so and gone along with that part of the plan.
It's utter nonsense though; Trump is one of the most American people in the world.
Pence actually calling Trump out as unAmerican now. Will anyone listen?
Everyone except Trump's supporters.
Unfortunately everyone except Trump's supporters knew it anyway.
There is, apparently, quite a lot to dislike about Pence. But while it shouldn't be laudable that he found his own line not to cross so late, just think how much worse things might have been had he not done so and gone along with that part of the plan.
Pence refusing to leave the Capitol was the difference between the election being certified or not. Whatever else he has done he will always deserve credit for that.
As Westminster digested the latest revelations from Boris Johnson's plan to suspend the constitution, abolish the monarchy and declare himself Independent Grand Vizier until 2096, Tory MP's said that the threshold for a vote of no confidence was now "very close to being reached", and could be met by the weekend.
Speaking off the record, Jasoline Noakes, MP for Cirencester, Nantwich and the Red Wall, told newspapers ; "Many of us were prepared to give Boris the benefit of the doubt, all through that suspension of the constitution nonsense and hullabaloo, which I thought was all a bit overdone, personally, but are now fed up. The final straw for a lot of us has been the framework document for the new Grand Vizier role, and the Abolition of the Monarchy Enabling Bill, but there are also a lot of perfectly sensible ideas there, too, that we think the London media just don't like. We have the numbers now."
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
You want to get into the head of the Hartlepudlians?
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
You want to get into the head of the Hartlepudlians?
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
Ah my post was truncated.
I was going to say something of this order, even though I think Charles was a grotesque snob, MrEd a fascist apologist, and CasinoRoyale a young fogey with rage issues.
There were other posters 'on the right' who no longer post as well - Bluest blue?
I don't consider myself as being on either the left or the right. I am sceptical about both, but see the left as being more dangerous at the moment - this somewhat informs my perspective.
It is amusing when the left wing posters all agree with each other, because it signifies nothing in the real world. Troubling though if it means that people 'on the right' quit posting on the website.
As Westminster digested the latest revelations from Boris Johnson's plan to suspend the constitution, abolish the monarchy and declare himself Independent Grand Vizier until 2096, Tory MP's said that the threshold for a vote of no confidence was now "very close to being reached", and could be met by the weekend.
Speaking off the record, Jasoline Noakes, MP for Cirencester, Nantwich and the Red Wall, told newspapers ; "Many of us were prepared to give Boris the benefit of the doubt, all through that suspension of the constitution nonsense and hullabaloo, which I thought was all a bit overdone, personally, but are now fed up. The final straw for a lot of us has been the framework document for the new Grand Vizier role, and the Abolition of the Monarchy Enabling Bill, but there are also a lot of perfectly sensible ideas there, too, that we think the London media just don't like. We have the numbers now."
'Matters worsened for Boris when close ally Jacob Rees Mogg dropkicked veteran Tory MP Sir Nicholas Soames, 113, and made him do the funky chicken. A fellow MP quoted anonymously said - "that was the last straw for many of us. Before that happened, we were just jolly cross, but now we're jolly, jolly cross.". Asked whether this meant he had sent a letter to the head of the 1922 Committee, the MP replied - ”I am waiting for Sue Gray's report before I make my final judgement, but let's just say the other day walking past WHSmith's, I definitely strongly considered buying a packet of cartridges for my fountain pen."
In all this talk of past evil imperial crimes, are we going to mention the evil the Chinese are perpetrating now on the Uighurs?
The current Chinese state is evil, an utter abomination, which has been responsible for mass murder, starvation, torture and oppression of the very worst kind.
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
You want to get into the head of the Hartlepudlians?
If you don’t you’ll never understand Brexit.
Understanding Brexit and understanding why people voted for it are very different things, my friend.
Good if you want a left leaning echo chamber. Not good if you want to hear diverse views that might help understand why people have different opinions.
Ah my post was truncated.
I was going to say something of this order, even though I think Charles was a grotesque snob, MrEd a fascist apologist, and CasinoRoyale a young fogey with rage issues.
There were other posters 'on the right' who no longer post as well - Bluest blue?
I don't consider myself as being on either the left or the right. I am sceptical about both, but see the left as being more dangerous at the moment - this somewhat informs my perspective.
It is amusing when the left wing posters all agree with each other, because it signifies nothing in the real world. Troubling though if it means that people 'on the right' quit posting on the website.
You clearly don’t remember last October when PB was wall to wall posts about how the Tory polling lead was going to last out the Millenium.
We need a Red Wall/EU Leaning seat's Con MP to cross the floor AND have the guts to demand a By-election where they stand as Lab/Lib. Is that something that could happen?
A photograph of Boris Johnson drinking a beer at a birthday event held for him in No 10 is among the 300 images handed to the Metropolitan Police, it has been reported. The prime minister was pictured standing next to Rishi Suank and raising a can of Estrella towards the camera in a photo allegedly taken by the official Downing Street photographer during the first national coronavirus lockdown. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-latest-sunak-savile-rebellion-b2008274.html
Comments
Scales are now global, which is why I think we may have a future (and we are not there yet, nowhere near) where interstate violence may be as rare as intercity violence is these days (here).
Sebag-montefiore is in a different league. His two books - the Red Tsar - and Young Stalin - are absolutely superb narrative histories with some amazing new research and details. I have heard he can write 3000-4000 words a day. All needing very little editing. THAT is impressive
He’s also a pretty good TV presenter
His big disappointment, for me, was Jerusalem: the Book. Such a fantastic subject yet he meanders. I think he prefers evil commie imperialists as subjects
Do we get to see this picture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Us8ElJ3yUY
If the aim is to avoid war, it seems to me that a better starting point is some acknowledgement of the processes that drive competition between states. This may have led us to better decisions, for instance in how we dealt with Russia in the mid 2010s.
The Queen of course is head of the Church of England not a Roman Catholic and not elected so a different matter
https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1489566060328198148?s=20&t=Wryt-qSitR_veYFo-Qg0-g
(Warning: contains scenes of Lefty humour some might find disturbing.)
If we want somebody else with different views, we should vote somebody else in.
Eg the birthday party date he'd been with PM in the morning at Bovington School
https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/50022312853/ https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1489696594576486405
Drip, drip, drip.
Tick, tock.
54 letters by Monday?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/04/ex-minister-nick-gibb-calls-boris-johnson-quit-partygate/
Sir Graham Brady is under no obligation to ask MPs who have submitted letters if they still want their letters to stand.
This strategy by Boris Johnson loyalists might be absolute fucking stupid.
@Charles, @MrEd come to mind.
@Cas I find Pie annoying, but this is okay-to-good.
A 6 or 7 out of 10.
Johnson has to stay.
Unfortunately everyone except Trump's supporters knew it anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX_DwE7nU6o
A modern slaver whose disabled victim was exploited for 40 years has been given a suspended prison sentence.
Peter Swailes' victim was made to work on farms for little pay and slept in a shed, Carlisle Crown Court heard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-60256915
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1489716880839426051
VONC on Monday.
Is there a Darwin award in politics?
I was going to say something of this order, even though I think Charles was a grotesque snob, MrEd a fascist apologist, and CasinoRoyale a young fogey with rage issues.
By breaking away and causing a civil war, they managed to halt the insertion of a protection for slavery into the constitution and caused its total abolition instead.
@TomLarkinSky
·
1h
A Tory MP told us tonight that the Cabinet should visit the PM and say it's time for him to go
About Blackpool and Preston having "no equivalence" with UK and Russia. That's the claim. The question is why that is the case. Why, in your sociobiological explanation aren't people in Preston and Blackpool "competing" in the same way?
As Westminster digested the latest revelations from Boris Johnson's plan to suspend the constitution, abolish the monarchy and declare himself Independent Grand Vizier until 2096, Tory MP's said that the threshold for a vote of no confidence was now "very close to being reached", and could be met by the weekend.
Speaking off the record, Jasoline Noakes, MP for Cirencester, Nantwich and the Red Wall, told newspapers ; "Many of us were prepared to give Boris the benefit of the doubt, all through that suspension of the constitution nonsense and hullabaloo, which I thought was all a bit overdone, personally, but are now fed up. The final straw for a lot of us has been the framework document for the new Grand Vizier role, and the Abolition of the Monarchy Enabling Bill, but there are also a lot of perfectly sensible ideas there, too, that we think the London media just don't like. We have the numbers now."
been caught holding a beer bottle.
Is that the wrong way round
I don't consider myself as being on either the left or the right. I am sceptical about both, but see the left as being more dangerous at the moment - this somewhat informs my perspective.
It is amusing when the left wing posters all agree with each other, because it signifies nothing in the real world. Troubling though if it means that people 'on the right' quit posting on the website.
'Matters worsened for Boris when close ally Jacob Rees Mogg dropkicked veteran Tory MP Sir Nicholas Soames, 113, and made him do the funky chicken. A fellow MP quoted anonymously said - "that was the last straw for many of us. Before that happened, we were just jolly cross, but now we're jolly, jolly cross.". Asked whether this meant he had sent a letter to the head of the 1922 Committee, the MP replied - ”I am waiting for Sue Gray's report before I make my final judgement, but let's just say the other day walking past WHSmith's, I definitely strongly considered buying a packet of cartridges for my fountain pen."
The current Chinese state is evil, an utter abomination, which has been responsible for mass murder, starvation, torture and oppression of the very worst kind.
Hope everyone enjoys it
The prime minister was pictured standing next to Rishi Suank and raising a can of Estrella towards the camera in a photo allegedly taken by the official Downing Street photographer during the first national coronavirus lockdown.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-latest-sunak-savile-rebellion-b2008274.html