COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
And yet some of them do? We also know that cultural values across Asia and Africa are much more conservative but as they liberalise among the younger generations some countries are starting to open up to the idea - see Israel and Thailand as examples of gay people's rights catching up with straight people's rights, I'm sure they won't be the last. Can you name even a single Islamic country where gay rights with be recognised let alone equalised with everyone else?
As for who I side with, I literally just pointed out that I'm on the same side as Tommy Robinson, it's disappointing but I'll live. As for Leon's previous comments I think they were clumsy more than racist, I don't believe he is racist at all and you've jumped on this example of poorly worded thoughts as a way to try and cancel him. It's not going to work, cancel culture is coming to an end.
Israel is becoming more homophobic at present, with parties like United Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu, and the Jewish Home. In terms of Muslim countries, Albania, for example, has some more progressive elements. Albania bans discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and was a signatory to the 2007 UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. I hope we will see more progress on gay marriage there.
I see powerful conservative forces, including conservative religious forces, in many parts of the world, but I don’t see Islam or Islamic countries as being uniquely bad here.
Leon is a racist and has repeatedly said racist things. You want to believe he was just being “clumsy” because you agree with his politics. But, sure, you have already acknowledged that you’re on the same side as Tommy Robinson. If that didn’t give you pause for thought, I don’t know what to say.
Viewing a whole world religion as being problematic, viewing all members of a religious or ethnic group as being dangerous, I think such views are (a) wrong and (b) lead to terrible consequences. I find it very disturbing how many here rush to Islamophobic sentiments. However, I must retire for the evening now. Good night.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
Have you ever met a muslim? Good grief you sometimes spout a load of bollocks.
There are liberal Muslims in the UK of course but:
'However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
In a series of questions on the terror threat in Britain, 4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent), and 4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.
Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) said they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.' https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
A group of nearly 30 parents and former teachers has spoken out about treatment of children at Mossbourne Victoria Park academy (MVPA) in Hackney.
The secondary school, rated outstanding by Ofsted and known for its high examination grades and tough discipline, is in the same federation as the acclaimed Mossbourne Community academy, also in Hackney and originally run by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the former chief inspector of schools for England who led Ofsted from 2012 to 2016.
A dossier of allegations about children’s experiences at the academy, shared with the Observer, includes first years being “screamed at” by senior leaders and five accounts of secondary-age pupils with no prior incontinence issues soiling themselves, or menstruating through their uniforms, because they were not allowed to go to the toilet or were too scared to ask...
That's Academies for you. And people scratch their heads as to why so many are out of school.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
FFS, read my post
"However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority"
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either
Both Albania and Bosnia are only 50.7% Muslim.
Kosovo is heavily Muslim, but is strongly secularised and is ranked first in Southern Europe as free and equal for tolerance towards religion and atheism.
Yes, so even 50.7% Muslim means same sex marriage is banned
Only if you are so naive to imagine that there are no gay muslims.
A group of nearly 30 parents and former teachers has spoken out about treatment of children at Mossbourne Victoria Park academy (MVPA) in Hackney.
The secondary school, rated outstanding by Ofsted and known for its high examination grades and tough discipline, is in the same federation as the acclaimed Mossbourne Community academy, also in Hackney and originally run by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the former chief inspector of schools for England who led Ofsted from 2012 to 2016.
A dossier of allegations about children’s experiences at the academy, shared with the Observer, includes first years being “screamed at” by senior leaders and five accounts of secondary-age pupils with no prior incontinence issues soiling themselves, or menstruating through their uniforms, because they were not allowed to go to the toilet or were too scared to ask...
That's Academies for you. And people scratch their heads as to why so many are out of school.
Unless corroborated with much more detail, I'd take any such story with a pinch of salt though.
Some kids don't like to be told off and sometimes teachers do need to tell kids off.
And some parents will back the kids up, and not the teacher, when that happens.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
And yet some of them do? We also know that cultural values across Asia and Africa are much more conservative but as they liberalise among the younger generations some countries are starting to open up to the idea - see Israel and Thailand as examples of gay people's rights catching up with straight people's rights, I'm sure they won't be the last. Can you name even a single Islamic country where gay rights with be recognised let alone equalised with everyone else?
As for who I side with, I literally just pointed out that I'm on the same side as Tommy Robinson, it's disappointing but I'll live. As for Leon's previous comments I think they were clumsy more than racist, I don't believe he is racist at all and you've jumped on this example of poorly worded thoughts as a way to try and cancel him. It's not going to work, cancel culture is coming to an end.
Israel is becoming more homophobic at present, with parties like United Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu, and the Jewish Home. In terms of Muslim countries, Albania, for example, has some more progressive elements. Albania bans discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and was a signatory to the 2007 UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. I hope we will see more progress on gay marriage there.
I see powerful conservative forces, including conservative religious forces, in many parts of the world, but I don’t see Islam or Islamic countries as being uniquely bad here.
Leon is a racist and has repeatedly said racist things. You want to believe he was just being “clumsy” because you agree with his politics. But, sure, you have already acknowledged that you’re on the same side as Tommy Robinson. If that didn’t give you pause for thought, I don’t know what to say.
Viewing a whole world religion as being problematic, viewing all members of a religious or ethnic group as being dangerous, I think such views are (a) wrong and (b) lead to terrible consequences. I find it very disturbing how many here rush to Islamophobic sentiments. However, I must retire for the evening now. Good night.
An intellectual midget departs, still managing to knock his tiny head on a chair-leg as he goes
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
FFS, read my post
"However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority"
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
FFS, read my post
"However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority"
A group of nearly 30 parents and former teachers has spoken out about treatment of children at Mossbourne Victoria Park academy (MVPA) in Hackney.
The secondary school, rated outstanding by Ofsted and known for its high examination grades and tough discipline, is in the same federation as the acclaimed Mossbourne Community academy, also in Hackney and originally run by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the former chief inspector of schools for England who led Ofsted from 2012 to 2016.
A dossier of allegations about children’s experiences at the academy, shared with the Observer, includes first years being “screamed at” by senior leaders and five accounts of secondary-age pupils with no prior incontinence issues soiling themselves, or menstruating through their uniforms, because they were not allowed to go to the toilet or were too scared to ask...
That's Academies for you. And people scratch their heads as to why so many are out of school.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
I said no such thing. I said we need more white British kids (a census definition, btw: White British) because they're not having enough kids, and they are not. This is a universal lament. I also heard it in Korea - not enough Korean kids! - and Japan - not enough Japanese kids! - on my recent visits
To develop the argument, because it isn't incendiary enough, I just read an argument by an evolutiuonary psychologist arguing that fundamentalist Islam is a logical Darwinian development if you are Muslim and you see collapsing birthrates in the non Muslim world. You lock up your women and force them to have babies
a) Why is 'white' the key word? Why not ginger hair or, as @rcs1000 asked you last time, why not discriminate based upon earlobes? What is special about 'white'?
b) It is difficult to know where to start with the last paragraph. It is gibberish.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
Um… who was saying they haven’t seen much evidence of Great Replacement Theory cropping up on PB?
What's the difference between a conspiracy theory and a projection of current trends?
From the 2001 to the 2021 census, Islam went from 2.7% to 5.97%, so that’s an increase of 3.27%, or 0.16% per year. If we project that trend forward, the UK will reach 50% Muslim in 269 more years. That is, in 2290. I think it unlikely any trend would actually continue for over two and a half centuries.
That’s the difference between a conspiracy theory and a projection of current trends.
That's not how it works, the replacement rate for Muslims is much higher than it is for non-Muslims in the UK - they have more kids per family than everyone else so the growth isn't linear. I'd have thought someone with your background would have been able to work that out. You probably did but it wouldn't help your stupid point I guess.
Immigrant populations rapidly move to have fertility rates like the local population. This happens in a few generations. Third generation from a Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage have a similar number of kids to White British parents, as do third generation from an Indian/Hindu heritage.
How many kids have you had? How many kids did your grandparents or great-grandparents have?
But that's not what's happened for Muslim people in the UK, you want it to be true but it's not. The fertility rate among Muslims is substantially higher than among everyone else. You're going to be sitting there one day in the future while Labour passed a bunch of hateful anti-gay legislation after being pushed into it by the Muslim party and you'll be telling yourself "at least I wasn't racist like those awful Tories".
There's a weird blind spot and accomodation of Islam by the left, it's the major part of the coalition that doesn't fit and eventually they'll form their own party and the tail will wag the dog. If you can't see that then I pity you. The sad part is you're smart enough that you probably do see it and realise that it's a path we're currently heading down but you're so far gone down the "mustn't be perceived as racist" road that there's no coming back. You can't repudiate it without admitting that maybe, just maybe, allowing millions of people who are opposed to our cultural values and have very strong beliefs in a stone age religion with backwards ideas was a poor idea.
Like the rest of the establishment you might get a scintilla of realisation from time to time but the fear of what you've allowed to happen will mean you will push that realisation aside and continue as if it's not happening and pretend to yourself that we're wrong and you're right. You're not, and you know it, I know it but you will never admit it.
Don't group the left into one homogeneous group. If you're concerned about "cancel culture", it's much more pernicious on this side of the spectrum because if you're campaigning on a particular issue (for me, various environmental stuff and active travel), you often get co-opted into other views which you don't actually hold. It's very awkward.
I basically agree with with what a lot of you guys are saying, but I'm naturally suspicious of your motivations. I really need a rock-solid, and very brave, lefty to put their head above the parapet.
I also note that rise in extremist views among young Muslim men mirrors that of white menelsewhere in Europe. Perhaps this the same phenomenon, and it's ultimately not based on religion.
My motivations are very simply and I've been open about them for a long time. Islam isn't compatible with western culture, some Muslims are and are secular but they are not the majority. In every major piece of research a huge majority of Muslims across western countries believe that violence is justified against people who blaspheme against Islam. That to me means Islam isn't compatible with our core value of free expression of ideas, you can't have free expression if people are afraid that they'll be stabbed if they speak out against Islamic ideas and that to me is a step too far.
I understand why you have scepticism but for me Islam is a religion that is never going to have a "reformation", the idea is antithetical to the religion and in the UK as you note, younger generations are more conservative than their parents and grandparents who lived under Islamic rule and escaped from it, but their kids have been fed a diet of poison in foreign funded mosques and on social media so they've become more militant and less likely to identify with British culture and more likely to hate those values and the people who follow them.
I was listening to an old Rest is History episode yesterday and they skated over something involving Islam, being quite open that they were worried about the response. Before rightly piling in on some of the a-historical stuff in other religions.
Not good.
Yes and this is why I'm worried, it's already effected the fabric of our country and culture. Our freedoms are lessened by Islam and that for me is not a future I want. Sadly, atm, it puts me on the same side as Tommy Robinson but in 2005-2009 it was Nick Griffin that was raising the alarm about Muslim rape gangs in northern cities. The establishment, the likes of our commissars on here, tried very hard to kill that story and failed. I have faith that the people of this country will recognise that the sacrifices we're being asked to make is too much and vote accordingly next time.
Being Islamophobic does put you on the same side as Tommy Robinson, good on you for owning it.
I'm listening to the 1973 Dr Who serial "Day of the Daleks". A proper Seventies episode: Cold War, the Man from the Ministry. Pertwee at his finest. There are some choice pieces of dialogue which I shall repost.
"Look try and use your intelligence man, even if you are a politician": Three to Sir Reginald Styles.
Looks like I've brought a knife to a gunfight with my defence chat.
Perhaps I'll try again tomorrow.
It's a good idea for a header, I'd like to see if fleshed out a bit more especially wrt how the additional funding doesn't get pissed up against the wall by the MoD which is the most likely outcome IMO.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
I said no such thing. I said we need more white British kids (a census definition, btw: White British) because they're not having enough kids, and they are not. This is a universal lament. I also heard it in Korea - not enough Korean kids! - and Japan - not enough Japanese kids! - on my recent visits
To develop the argument, because it isn't incendiary enough, I just read an argument by an evolutiuonary psychologist arguing that fundamentalist Islam is a logical Darwinian development if you are Muslim and you see collapsing birthrates in the non Muslim world. You lock up your women and force them to have babies
a) Why is 'white' the key word? Why not ginger hair or, as @rcs1000 asked you last time, why not discriminate based upon earlobes? What is special about 'white'?
b) It is difficult to know where to start with the last paragraph. It is gibberish.
Is it gibberish? I dunno. My first reaction was yours: yes, gibberish
But then you look at Afghani birthrates: TFR of 3.74 as of 2024. One of the highest in the world outside Africa
We all think that orthodox Islam is driven by religious/political movements around the world, but what if it is driven - at least in later years - by barely understood and primal - indeed evolutuonary reactions to population movements eleswhere? It depends whether you believe in group/tribal evolutionary motivations
An observer from Betelgeuse in his drone might observe: "ooh look, humans start dying out with collapsing birth rates if they educate their women, and let them free, that seems to be universal. That's surely why some Muslims especially the Taliban have gone the opposite way, and they have confined their women and turned them into breeding machines, soon the Afghans will outnumber the Germans"
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
The interesting thing would be to know how they have done it. What tonight on pb has shown is that some people are so committed to the idea of equality that they turn themselves into pretzels to avoid seeing the truth.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
Have you ever met a muslim? Good grief you sometimes spout a load of bollocks.
There are liberal Muslims in the UK of course but:
'However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
In a series of questions on the terror threat in Britain, 4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent), and 4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.
Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) said they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.' https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
i.e. only a small minority of muslims support sharia law. Once again you can never accept when you are wrong.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
And yet some of them do? We also know that cultural values across Asia and Africa are much more conservative but as they liberalise among the younger generations some countries are starting to open up to the idea - see Israel and Thailand as examples of gay people's rights catching up with straight people's rights, I'm sure they won't be the last. Can you name even a single Islamic country where gay rights with be recognised let alone equalised with everyone else?
As for who I side with, I literally just pointed out that I'm on the same side as Tommy Robinson, it's disappointing but I'll live. As for Leon's previous comments I think they were clumsy more than racist, I don't believe he is racist at all and you've jumped on this example of poorly worded thoughts as a way to try and cancel him. It's not going to work, cancel culture is coming to an end.
Israel is becoming more homophobic at present, with parties like United Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu, and the Jewish Home. In terms of Muslim countries, Albania, for example, has some more progressive elements. Albania bans discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and was a signatory to the 2007 UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. I hope we will see more progress on gay marriage there.
I see powerful conservative forces, including conservative religious forces, in many parts of the world, but I don’t see Islam or Islamic countries as being uniquely bad here.
Leon is a racist and has repeatedly said racist things. You want to believe he was just being “clumsy” because you agree with his politics. But, sure, you have already acknowledged that you’re on the same side as Tommy Robinson. If that didn’t give you pause for thought, I don’t know what to say.
Viewing a whole world religion as being problematic, viewing all members of a religious or ethnic group as being dangerous, I think such views are (a) wrong and (b) lead to terrible consequences. I find it very disturbing how many here rush to Islamophobic sentiments. However, I must retire for the evening now. Good night.
In 2005-2009 I was on the same side as Nick Griffin when he was pleading for the Muslim rape gangs in the north to be dealt with. You were on the other side condemning people like me and suggesting I change my views based on being on the same side as Nick Griffin, or take pause for thought. How did that turn out for all of those like you who tried their damndest to cover it up and smear anyone who suggested Griffin might be right?
An industrial scale rape and exploitation of young girls and you're more worried about what it might look like because Nick Griffin is on my side? I think its you that needs to get perspective, not me.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
Have you ever met a muslim? Good grief you sometimes spout a load of bollocks.
There are liberal Muslims in the UK of course but:
'However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
In a series of questions on the terror threat in Britain, 4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent), and 4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.
Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) said they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.' https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
I grew up a Catholic, and the view of British Catholics regarding homosexuality has changed dramatically in just a few decades. In the 80s it wouldn't have been particularly different to the survey you quoted about Muslims.
There's also much newer polling, from 2024 suggesting that, while Muslims are still more likely than the overall population, to think homosexuality should be illegal, it's only 27% (and a similar number say it would be undesirable). Two different surveys, eight years apart, but you could easily pick out the headline as a halving of the number of Muslims who think homosexuality is illegal.
I wouldn't, because it's more complex, but I also don't think a 2016 survey can predict the future.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
I said no such thing. I said we need more white British kids (a census definition, btw: White British) because they're not having enough kids, and they are not. This is a universal lament. I also heard it in Korea - not enough Korean kids! - and Japan - not enough Japanese kids! - on my recent visits
To develop the argument, because it isn't incendiary enough, I just read an argument by an evolutiuonary psychologist arguing that fundamentalist Islam is a logical Darwinian development if you are Muslim and you see collapsing birthrates in the non Muslim world. You lock up your women and force them to have babies
a) Why is 'white' the key word? Why not ginger hair or, as @rcs1000 asked you last time, why not discriminate based upon earlobes? What is special about 'white'?
b) It is difficult to know where to start with the last paragraph. It is gibberish.
Is it gibberish? I dunno. My first reaction was yours: yes, gibberish
But then you look at Afghani birthrates: TFR of 3.74 as of 2024. One of the highest in the world outside Africa
We all think that orthodox Islam is driven by religious/political movements around the world, but what if it is driven - at least in later years - by barely understood and primal - indeed evolutuonary reactions to population movements eleswhere? It depends whether you believe in group/tribal evolutionary motivations
An observer from Betelgeuse in his drone might observe: "ooh look, humans start dying out with collapsing birth rates if they educate their women, and let them free, that seems to be universal. That's surely why some Muslims especially the Taliban have gone the opposite way, and they have confined their women and turned them into breeding machines, soon the Afghans will outnumber the Germans"
There are so so so many other reasons for various groups to have a higher birth rate. I mean so many obvious reasons, the idea we have to create a new one is daft. I think we all know why Catholics in the past had a higher birth rate or poor Africans or our ancestors did. Different reasons which were all easily explainable without coming up with a cock and ball irrational reason.
I'm listening to the 1973 Dr Who serial "Day of the Daleks". A proper Seventies episode: Cold War, the Man from the Ministry. Pertwee at his finest. There are some choice pieces of dialogue which I shall repost.
"Look try and use your intelligence man, even if you are a politician": Three to Sir Reginald Styles.
Dalek to the quisling human Controller of England: "There has been a recent drop in production figures...production targets must be maintained!"
Controller: "Production targets will be reached in the next work period"
Dalek: "For the next work period production targets will be increased by 10%!"
Controller: "But that's impossible! If we push the workers any further they will die!"
Dalek: "Only the weak will die. Inefficient workers slow down production. Obey the Daleks!"
Amazing how a fifty year old children's television story can grasp what adults of today cannot.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
I said no such thing. I said we need more white British kids (a census definition, btw: White British) because they're not having enough kids, and they are not. This is a universal lament. I also heard it in Korea - not enough Korean kids! - and Japan - not enough Japanese kids! - on my recent visits
To develop the argument, because it isn't incendiary enough, I just read an argument by an evolutiuonary psychologist arguing that fundamentalist Islam is a logical Darwinian development if you are Muslim and you see collapsing birthrates in the non Muslim world. You lock up your women and force them to have babies
a) Why is 'white' the key word? Why not ginger hair or, as @rcs1000 asked you last time, why not discriminate based upon earlobes? What is special about 'white'?
b) It is difficult to know where to start with the last paragraph. It is gibberish.
Is it gibberish? I dunno. My first reaction was yours: yes, gibberish
But then you look at Afghani birthrates: TFR of 3.74 as of 2024. One of the highest in the world outside Africa
We all think that orthodox Islam is driven by religious/political movements around the world, but what if it is driven - at least in later years - by barely understood and primal - indeed evolutuonary reactions to population movements eleswhere? It depends whether you believe in group/tribal evolutionary motivations
An observer from Betelgeuse in his drone might observe: "ooh look, humans start dying out with collapsing birth rates if they educate their women, and let them free, that seems to be universal. That's surely why some Muslims especially the Taliban have gone the opposite way, and they have confined their women and turned them into breeding machines, soon the Afghans will outnumber the Germans"
There are so so so many other reasons for various groups to have a higher birth rate. I mean so many obvious reasons, the idea we have to create a new one is daft. I think we all know why Catholics in the past had a higher birth rate or poor Africans or our ancestors did. Different reasons which were all easily explainable without coming up with a cock and ball irrational reason.
As may be obvious from my commenting history, I like - and I am open to - interesting new theories, facts, data, whatever their provenance. I initially dismissed this one, but on inspection I am not entirely sure it is rubbish. I shall contemplate it, which is more than you will do, because you are not enormously bright
But I still like you!
And on that ecumenical note, I bid the site goodnight
This link mentions the similarities with unidentified aircraft over bases in the U.S. throughout the last year. Just as with this one with Lakenheath, the Pentagon professes puzzlement each time.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
I said no such thing. I said we need more white British kids (a census definition, btw: White British) because they're not having enough kids, and they are not. This is a universal lament. I also heard it in Korea - not enough Korean kids! - and Japan - not enough Japanese kids! - on my recent visits
To develop the argument, because it isn't incendiary enough, I just read an argument by an evolutiuonary psychologist arguing that fundamentalist Islam is a logical Darwinian development if you are Muslim and you see collapsing birthrates in the non Muslim world. You lock up your women and force them to have babies
a) Why is 'white' the key word? Why not ginger hair or, as @rcs1000 asked you last time, why not discriminate based upon earlobes? What is special about 'white'?
b) It is difficult to know where to start with the last paragraph. It is gibberish.
Is it gibberish? I dunno. My first reaction was yours: yes, gibberish
But then you look at Afghani birthrates: TFR of 3.74 as of 2024. One of the highest in the world outside Africa
We all think that orthodox Islam is driven by religious/political movements around the world, but what if it is driven - at least in later years - by barely understood and primal - indeed evolutuonary reactions to population movements eleswhere? It depends whether you believe in group/tribal evolutionary motivations
An observer from Betelgeuse in his drone might observe: "ooh look, humans start dying out with collapsing birth rates if they educate their women, and let them free, that seems to be universal. That's surely why some Muslims especially the Taliban have gone the opposite way, and they have confined their women and turned them into breeding machines, soon the Afghans will outnumber the Germans"
Well there's a lot to unpack there. Perhaps a header?
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
Have you ever met a muslim? Good grief you sometimes spout a load of bollocks.
There are liberal Muslims in the UK of course but:
'However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
In a series of questions on the terror threat in Britain, 4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent), and 4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.
Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) said they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.' https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
Sure, but such attitudes would have been the norm for indigenous Brits just a few decades ago.
Certainly there are problems with fanatics and with reactionary attitudes to women and homosexuality, though no doubt attitudes to Trans would fit more neatly with PB's Great Replacementers.
I live in a city that's about a quarter Muslim, varying from very orthodox and traditional to the most nominal of Muslims. It's a tremendous range, and there are delightful people and arseholes at both ends of the spectrum. One reason Liberals like me can engage with people who have archaic views on women and sexuality is because I share a lot of other values with them. The concepts of service to community, family, the importance of humility and the recognition of values beyond consumerism. We have far more in common than that that divides us.
I think the GRT is tosh, and it really doesn't bother me if the percentage of Muslims rises. These are British people and like all other Britons are entitled to their own beliefs and customs as long as they don't try to force them on anyone else. I have a number of very observant Muslim colleagues, male and female, and have never encountered homophobic or misogynist actions from them. That is how it should be.
That Lakenheath story just gets increasingly strange.
There seem to be multiple reports from local people of F-15's chasing the objects, on two different nights.
The Russians haven’t shown any indication in the last 3 years of having interesting tech. But we are at a heightened sense of security the last week so the timing is relevant.
While I am ~90% sure at least some of the UAP incidents over the decades are examples of non human tech, I wonder whether what we’re seeing here is a secret US anti nuclear capability. Things that can buzz around sensitive areas and turn ICBMs into whizz bangers using electronic interference. The ultimate patriot system. Anyway, “go back to bed, your govt is in control again”.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Not a single Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country has same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is largely confined to Western Europe and the Americas, with a few exceptions.
Taiwan has same sex marriage now. Israel has cohabitation rights for same sex couples. Even several Indian states give same sex couples cohabitation rights. India and Israel have also had female PMs and India a female head of state
Taiwan is not a Hindu, Jewish, Shinto or Daoist majority country, so it doesn’t disprove what I said. However, I was not aware of that welcome change in Taiwan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As I said, Israel and India do not have same sex marriage.
There are several Muslim countries that have had female heads of state as well, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.
Israel recognises same sex civil unions and they are now protected by a supreme court ruling. My wife's cousin had a lesbian civil union ceremony performed over a video link in Tel Aviv a year or so ago before the war started. It's convoluted but Israel basically has gay marriage, or at least gay people in Israel are able to have all the same rights as straight people.
Indeed
And yet.... Queers for Palestine. And waving Hamas, Houthi and Hezbollah symbols and flags, despite the fact Hamas would slaughter them in short order
The galaxies weep
It's just ridiculous, another think that bothers me is that he mentions "Hindu, Jewish and Shinto" countries but that's literally just India, Israel and Japan. Each of those religions get one bite at the cherry because there are no other Hindu, Jewish or Shinto countries in the world. Islam, otoh, has got the whole middle east, a big chunk of South Asia, huge parts of Africa and a small part of Europe where they are the majority and not a single country has legalised gay marriage or given gay people the same rights as straight people. There's no equivalence there between them and yet that's the kind of comparison he needs to make so that Islam seems reasonable.
My point is that the dividing line on same sex marriage in the world is not Muslim v non-Muslim, it’s Western Europe + the Americas v nearly everywhere else. Nearly all non-Muslim countries in Africa and Asia don’t have same sex marriage.
And do you want to team up with Leon, someone who thinks your children can’t count as fully British if they’re not white?
I said no such thing. I said we need more white British kids (a census definition, btw: White British) because they're not having enough kids, and they are not. This is a universal lament. I also heard it in Korea - not enough Korean kids! - and Japan - not enough Japanese kids! - on my recent visits
To develop the argument, because it isn't incendiary enough, I just read an argument by an evolutiuonary psychologist arguing that fundamentalist Islam is a logical Darwinian development if you are Muslim and you see collapsing birthrates in the non Muslim world. You lock up your women and force them to have babies
a) Why is 'white' the key word? Why not ginger hair or, as @rcs1000 asked you last time, why not discriminate based upon earlobes? What is special about 'white'?
b) It is difficult to know where to start with the last paragraph. It is gibberish.
Is it gibberish? I dunno. My first reaction was yours: yes, gibberish
But then you look at Afghani birthrates: TFR of 3.74 as of 2024. One of the highest in the world outside Africa
We all think that orthodox Islam is driven by religious/political movements around the world, but what if it is driven - at least in later years - by barely understood and primal - indeed evolutuonary reactions to population movements eleswhere? It depends whether you believe in group/tribal evolutionary motivations
An observer from Betelgeuse in his drone might observe: "ooh look, humans start dying out with collapsing birth rates if they educate their women, and let them free, that seems to be universal. That's surely why some Muslims especially the Taliban have gone the opposite way, and they have confined their women and turned them into breeding machines, soon the Afghans will outnumber the Germans"
There are so so so many other reasons for various groups to have a higher birth rate. I mean so many obvious reasons, the idea we have to create a new one is daft. I think we all know why Catholics in the past had a higher birth rate or poor Africans or our ancestors did. Different reasons which were all easily explainable without coming up with a cock and ball irrational reason.
As may be obvious from my commenting history, I like - and I am open to - interesting new theories, facts, data, whatever their provenance. I initially dismissed this one, but on inspection I am not entirely sure it is rubbish. I shall contemplate it, which is more than you will do, because you are not enormously bright
But I still like you!
And on that ecumenical note, I bid the site goodnight
One should contemplate stuff that is 'out of the box', but it has to stand up to rational scrutiny. There is a difference between out of the box thinking and irrational gibberish.
Clever people say stuff that is out there. Sadly however there are far more idiots who also do. Most of us can usually discriminate between the two and are amazed by the former and can easily identify the latter. A few of us are not so good at it though.
We probably need a plan to rebuild the army, navy and to some extent the air force (this is a trickier one that I'll come back to) over a 5-10 year period, with an industrial strategy to boot, otherwise any extra money will simply be absorbed by inflation. On top, we'd need software integration of the defence platforms. Strategic objective should be to protect international and global trade, global stability and British interests worldwide as well as deter a serious "hot" war on the continent or near east, with a large sized force, and the option of a long-term medium sized deployment overseas.
RAF: hypersonic and drone defences, which might be more where the modern RAF needs to go on top of Tempest, if it's still valid, and additional strike capability. I doubt seven front-line squadrons are enough. Of course, we need maritime aircraft.
Royal Navy: is in a pitiful state. The 1998 SDR projected reducing the fleet of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. And we were supposed to get 12 x Type 45 destroyers. But we now actually only have 6 and, I think now, only 12 x frigates, most of which can't put to sea, and 6 x functional HK subs. We need to get back up to 12 x destroyers, 20 x frigates, 12 x attack submarines, four x strategic subs, two amphibious platforms, and a RFA that can sustain them all. We can deploy a serious carrier battlegroup with reserves at any time. Big expansion.
British Army: in an even more pitiful state. At almost every level. Where do you start? Ammo, artillery, fighting vehicles, APCs, tanks and infantry all well below even the most basic establishment levels. The BAOR was about 50k men right though the 1980s and British Forces Germany still 25k men in the 1990s. Whatever way I look at it I think we need the capability for the deployment of two fully equipped heavy war-fighting divisions, with another in reserve and another in training. It probably needs to go back up to about 125,000 regulars which is an expansion of 50,000 men. Massive.
But my fag packet calculations are that we'd need to probably spend 3.5% of GDP ultimately to do all that. So the defence budget need to rise from £57bn per year to about £88-89bn per year or about a 30-32bn increase each year.
I can get there with 2p on the basic rate and the higher rate, so 22p becomes the new basic rate and 42p become the higher rate and 47p the new top rate (raises about £20bn of that) and ending the triple lock (saves about £10bn).
The more I think about it the more I think we have to do it, and start arguing for it..
I could live with that. You?
Yes, pretty much. Some minor caveats: Tempest is probably non-doable and the Americans are thinking about abandoning their next-gen program in favour of continually upgrading F35. So cease all future development and concentrate on adding to, and continually improving what we have. So bring all SA80 rifles up to L85A3 standard, all Challys up to Challenger 3 standard, put cats and traps on the carriers and add drones for refuelling and recon. I haven't a clue what to do with F35 (you can't maintain it on land let alone sea) or Ajax (its shit). But that's just noodling: your plan is sound, and there's nothing more expensive than a second-best army.
Despite AEP apparently agreeing I still think no deal at the COP is a good outcome. It would bring an element of realism back to these discussions and, frankly, we don't have the money. I am worried that the likes of Ed Miliband and Starmer will feel the need to try and push this over the line with our money. The money we don't have for the NHS, the provision of care services, for education, for defence and to restrict the rate at which our ever growing debts increase. Enough.
Climate change, like war, is an existential threat to our country. It makes no sense to treat the threat from climate change any differently to the threat from hostile nations.
In retrospect, was German reindustrialisation after WW2 a crime against humanity? Just think how much cumulative damage it has done to the climate.
The interesting question is to what extent Western sponsorship of that was a function of creating a bulwark against Soviet Russia.
It's possible they might have been deindustrialised were it not for that threat.
Nope.
As was realised when Morgenthau presented his plan, a de-industrialised Germany would either require vast amounts of aid in perpetuity or a lot less Germans. Probably 1/3 of the existing population.
The Russians re-industrialised the East for the same reason - cleaning up the toxic mess made (the standards of the 1930s were used until 1989) is ongoing to this day.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
Um… who was saying they haven’t seen much evidence of Great Replacement Theory cropping up on PB?
What's the difference between a conspiracy theory and a projection of current trends?
From the 2001 to the 2021 census, Islam went from 2.7% to 5.97%, so that’s an increase of 3.27%, or 0.16% per year. If we project that trend forward, the UK will reach 50% Muslim in 269 more years. That is, in 2290. I think it unlikely any trend would actually continue for over two and a half centuries.
That’s the difference between a conspiracy theory and a projection of current trends.
That is pretty poor analysis from someone who has told us (s)he's an FRSS (Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society). Your assumption of linear growth in the proportion is obviously incorrect - what happens when you hit 100%? A better model (not the only one possible) takes the finite limit into account by using log-odds rather than proportions In 2001 log-odds = ln(0.027/(1-0.027)) ≈ -3.58 In 2021 log-odds = ln(0.0597/(1-0.0597)) ≈ -2.75 -> an increase of 0.83 over 20 years, i.e. about 0.0415 per year on the log-odds scale. If you want to project this forwards then the future proportion = 1/(1 + e^(-log-odds)) So to get to 50% Muslim, the log-odds would be ln(0.5/0.5) = 0 Starting from 2021's log-odds of -2.75, increasing by 0.0415 per year: we get Number of years = (0 - (-2.75))/0.0415 ≈ 66.3 years, i.e. in 2087
Point of order: I think being a fellow of the RSS just means you've joined and you are up-to-date with the membership fees. In terms of ranks, there's your fellow, then there's GradStat (I keep meaning to upgrade from this: I've got until 2029 as I was grandfathered in), CStat, and I don't know what comes after that. They've recently added "Data Analyst" and "Data Science Professional" in order to be hip and trendy, but any competent DS/ML person is off earning six figures and not joining RSS to hear fuddy-duddys talking about optimising queues in hospitals or tracking baboons in jungles (the latter is a real example and very interesting it was too)
This link mentions the similarities with unidentified aircraft over bases in the U.S. throughout the last year. Just as with this one with Lakenheath, the Pentagon professes puzzlement each time.
We probably need a plan to rebuild the army, navy and to some extent the air force (this is a trickier one that I'll come back to) over a 5-10 year period, with an industrial strategy to boot, otherwise any extra money will simply be absorbed by inflation. On top, we'd need software integration of the defence platforms. Strategic objective should be to protect international and global trade, global stability and British interests worldwide as well as deter a serious "hot" war on the continent or near east, with a large sized force, and the option of a long-term medium sized deployment overseas.
RAF: hypersonic and drone defences, which might be more where the modern RAF needs to go on top of Tempest, if it's still valid, and additional strike capability. I doubt seven front-line squadrons are enough. Of course, we need maritime aircraft.
Royal Navy: is in a pitiful state. The 1998 SDR projected reducing the fleet of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. And we were supposed to get 12 x Type 45 destroyers. But we now actually only have 6 and, I think now, only 12 x frigates, most of which can't put to sea, and 6 x functional HK subs. We need to get back up to 12 x destroyers, 20 x frigates, 12 x attack submarines, four x strategic subs, two amphibious platforms, and a RFA that can sustain them all. We can deploy a serious carrier battlegroup with reserves at any time. Big expansion.
British Army: in an even more pitiful state. At almost every level. Where do you start? Ammo, artillery, fighting vehicles, APCs, tanks and infantry all well below even the most basic establishment levels. The BAOR was about 50k men right though the 1980s and British Forces Germany still 25k men in the 1990s. Whatever way I look at it I think we need the capability for the deployment of two fully equipped heavy war-fighting divisions, with another in reserve and another in training. It probably needs to go back up to about 125,000 regulars which is an expansion of 50,000 men. Massive.
But my fag packet calculations are that we'd need to probably spend 3.5% of GDP ultimately to do all that. So the defence budget need to rise from £57bn per year to about £88-89bn per year or about a 30-32bn increase each year.
I can get there with 2p on the basic rate and the higher rate, so 22p becomes the new basic rate and 42p become the higher rate and 47p the new top rate (raises about £20bn of that) and ending the triple lock (saves about £10bn).
The more I think about it the more I think we have to do it, and start arguing for it..
I could live with that. You?
Yes, pretty much. Some minor caveats: Tempest is probably non-doable and the Americans are thinking about abandoning their next-gen program in favour of continually upgrading F35. So cease all future development and concentrate on adding to, and continually improving what we have. So bring all SA80 rifles up to L85A3 standard, all Challys up to Challenger 3 standard, put cats and traps on the carriers and add drones for refuelling and recon. I haven't a clue what to do with F35 (you can't maintain it on land let alone sea) or Ajax (its shit). But that's just noodling: your plan is sound, and there's nothing more expensive than a second-best army.
Nope. Any discussion on defence that starts with platform numbers is starting from the wrong place.
People do ever-egg this argument but it is true to say that one modern F35 (once it has spear) can do more than a squadron of tornadoes 20 years ago could; and one Type 45 has an air defence capability beyond that of the whole fleet back then. Of course there is a balancing factor that one ship, for example, can only be in one place at one time, but talking pure numbers, and comparing to the past, is the wrong starting point.
And Drummond is an old fashioned “army first” type who probably wants to rebuild the corps we had in Germany.
We probably need a plan to rebuild the army, navy and to some extent the air force (this is a trickier one that I'll come back to) over a 5-10 year period, with an industrial strategy to boot, otherwise any extra money will simply be absorbed by inflation. On top, we'd need software integration of the defence platforms. Strategic objective should be to protect international and global trade, global stability and British interests worldwide as well as deter a serious "hot" war on the continent or near east, with a large sized force, and the option of a long-term medium sized deployment overseas.
RAF: hypersonic and drone defences, which might be more where the modern RAF needs to go on top of Tempest, if it's still valid, and additional strike capability. I doubt seven front-line squadrons are enough. Of course, we need maritime aircraft.
Royal Navy: is in a pitiful state. The 1998 SDR projected reducing the fleet of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. And we were supposed to get 12 x Type 45 destroyers. But we now actually only have 6 and, I think now, only 12 x frigates, most of which can't put to sea, and 6 x functional HK subs. We need to get back up to 12 x destroyers, 20 x frigates, 12 x attack submarines, four x strategic subs, two amphibious platforms, and a RFA that can sustain them all. We can deploy a serious carrier battlegroup with reserves at any time. Big expansion.
British Army: in an even more pitiful state. At almost every level. Where do you start? Ammo, artillery, fighting vehicles, APCs, tanks and infantry all well below even the most basic establishment levels. The BAOR was about 50k men right though the 1980s and British Forces Germany still 25k men in the 1990s. Whatever way I look at it I think we need the capability for the deployment of two fully equipped heavy war-fighting divisions, with another in reserve and another in training. It probably needs to go back up to about 125,000 regulars which is an expansion of 50,000 men. Massive.
But my fag packet calculations are that we'd need to probably spend 3.5% of GDP ultimately to do all that. So the defence budget need to rise from £57bn per year to about £88-89bn per year or about a 30-32bn increase each year.
I can get there with 2p on the basic rate and the higher rate, so 22p becomes the new basic rate and 42p become the higher rate and 47p the new top rate (raises about £20bn of that) and ending the triple lock (saves about £10bn).
The more I think about it the more I think we have to do it, and start arguing for it..
I could live with that. You?
Yes, pretty much. Some minor caveats: Tempest is probably non-doable and the Americans are thinking about abandoning their next-gen program in favour of continually upgrading F35. So cease all future development and concentrate on adding to, and continually improving what we have. So bring all SA80 rifles up to L85A3 standard, all Challys up to Challenger 3 standard, put cats and traps on the carriers and add drones for refuelling and recon. I haven't a clue what to do with F35 (you can't maintain it on land let alone sea) or Ajax (its shit). But that's just noodling: your plan is sound, and there's nothing more expensive than a second-best army.
In the short term increased number of existing equipment and supplies is needed. Big ticket items like warships and new ranges of planes are much longer term projects. We simply don't have the capacity to build that many more subs or ships very quickly. Then there's the problem of crewing with appropriately skilled personnel.
Equipment becomes obsolete quite quickly, and the recent announcement scrapping ships and aircraft was mostly a recognition that these were near the end of possible service life without major refurbishment. The landing ships were already mothballed.
Some of the drones that are going are only 6 years old, but that simply illustrates how quickly things become obsolete in active war. In 3 years drone warfare has transformed in Ukraine. We don't hear of Bayraktar any more, though they were highly praised just a couple of years back.
I don't think any government will expand the forces that much. There is a problem of recruitment and retention, and one that has got worse rather than better under governments of all colours over the decades.
We probably need a plan to rebuild the army, navy and to some extent the air force (this is a trickier one that I'll come back to) over a 5-10 year period, with an industrial strategy to boot, otherwise any extra money will simply be absorbed by inflation. On top, we'd need software integration of the defence platforms. Strategic objective should be to protect international and global trade, global stability and British interests worldwide as well as deter a serious "hot" war on the continent or near east, with a large sized force, and the option of a long-term medium sized deployment overseas.
RAF: hypersonic and drone defences, which might be more where the modern RAF needs to go on top of Tempest, if it's still valid, and additional strike capability. I doubt seven front-line squadrons are enough. Of course, we need maritime aircraft.
Royal Navy: is in a pitiful state. The 1998 SDR projected reducing the fleet of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. And we were supposed to get 12 x Type 45 destroyers. But we now actually only have 6 and, I think now, only 12 x frigates, most of which can't put to sea, and 6 x functional HK subs. We need to get back up to 12 x destroyers, 20 x frigates, 12 x attack submarines, four x strategic subs, two amphibious platforms, and a RFA that can sustain them all. We can deploy a serious carrier battlegroup with reserves at any time. Big expansion.
British Army: in an even more pitiful state. At almost every level. Where do you start? Ammo, artillery, fighting vehicles, APCs, tanks and infantry all well below even the most basic establishment levels. The BAOR was about 50k men right though the 1980s and British Forces Germany still 25k men in the 1990s. Whatever way I look at it I think we need the capability for the deployment of two fully equipped heavy war-fighting divisions, with another in reserve and another in training. It probably needs to go back up to about 125,000 regulars which is an expansion of 50,000 men. Massive.
But my fag packet calculations are that we'd need to probably spend 3.5% of GDP ultimately to do all that. So the defence budget need to rise from £57bn per year to about £88-89bn per year or about a 30-32bn increase each year.
I can get there with 2p on the basic rate and the higher rate, so 22p becomes the new basic rate and 42p become the higher rate and 47p the new top rate (raises about £20bn of that) and ending the triple lock (saves about £10bn).
The more I think about it the more I think we have to do it, and start arguing for it..
I could live with that. You?
Yes, pretty much. Some minor caveats: Tempest is probably non-doable and the Americans are thinking about abandoning their next-gen program in favour of continually upgrading F35. So cease all future development and concentrate on adding to, and continually improving what we have. So bring all SA80 rifles up to L85A3 standard, all Challys up to Challenger 3 standard, put cats and traps on the carriers and add drones for refuelling and recon. I haven't a clue what to do with F35 (you can't maintain it on land let alone sea) or Ajax (its shit). But that's just noodling: your plan is sound, and there's nothing more expensive than a second-best army.
Nope. Any discussion on defence that starts with platform numbers is starting from the wrong place.
People do ever-egg this argument but it is true to say that one modern F35 (once it has spear) can do more than a squadron of tornadoes 20 years ago could; and one Type 45 has an air defence capability beyond that of the whole fleet back then. Of course there is a balancing factor that one ship, for example, can only be in one place at one time, but talking pure numbers, and comparing to the past, is the wrong starting point.
And Drummond is an old fashioned “army first” type who probably wants to rebuild the corps we had in Germany.
All together now: quantity has a quality all of its own.
The problem isn't capability, it's attritability. It doesn't matter how good it is, it's how many you have left when you blow it up. Any European war in the next ten years will be with the Russians, and they are perfectly willing to throw bodies at you until you drown in their blood.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
The interesting thing would be to know how they have done it. What tonight on pb has shown is that some people are so committed to the idea of equality that they turn themselves into pretzels to avoid seeing the truth.
Richard has written about this at length, but the key to it is a combination of:
(a) intensive language and cultural education and (b) being extremely proactive at stopping ghettos from forming
So, if you are a (for example) Syrian refugee, you won't be shoved together with a bunch of other Syrian refugees. In fact, you're highly unlikely to have Syrian refugee neighbours.
This is the complete opposite of the approach taken by most countries, where they chuck all the new arrivals from [x] together, and then basically let them be.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
I'm in Norway and very much enjoying the high levels of trust there are here, such as almost no ticket barriers for anything. People are trusted to have paid for tickets for transport. I hope not too many people are taking advantage of it, particularly tourists.
We probably need a plan to rebuild the army, navy and to some extent the air force (this is a trickier one that I'll come back to) over a 5-10 year period, with an industrial strategy to boot, otherwise any extra money will simply be absorbed by inflation. On top, we'd need software integration of the defence platforms. Strategic objective should be to protect international and global trade, global stability and British interests worldwide as well as deter a serious "hot" war on the continent or near east, with a large sized force, and the option of a long-term medium sized deployment overseas.
RAF: hypersonic and drone defences, which might be more where the modern RAF needs to go on top of Tempest, if it's still valid, and additional strike capability. I doubt seven front-line squadrons are enough. Of course, we need maritime aircraft.
Royal Navy: is in a pitiful state. The 1998 SDR projected reducing the fleet of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. And we were supposed to get 12 x Type 45 destroyers. But we now actually only have 6 and, I think now, only 12 x frigates, most of which can't put to sea, and 6 x functional HK subs. We need to get back up to 12 x destroyers, 20 x frigates, 12 x attack submarines, four x strategic subs, two amphibious platforms, and a RFA that can sustain them all. We can deploy a serious carrier battlegroup with reserves at any time. Big expansion.
British Army: in an even more pitiful state. At almost every level. Where do you start? Ammo, artillery, fighting vehicles, APCs, tanks and infantry all well below even the most basic establishment levels. The BAOR was about 50k men right though the 1980s and British Forces Germany still 25k men in the 1990s. Whatever way I look at it I think we need the capability for the deployment of two fully equipped heavy war-fighting divisions, with another in reserve and another in training. It probably needs to go back up to about 125,000 regulars which is an expansion of 50,000 men. Massive.
But my fag packet calculations are that we'd need to probably spend 3.5% of GDP ultimately to do all that. So the defence budget need to rise from £57bn per year to about £88-89bn per year or about a 30-32bn increase each year.
I can get there with 2p on the basic rate and the higher rate, so 22p becomes the new basic rate and 42p become the higher rate and 47p the new top rate (raises about £20bn of that) and ending the triple lock (saves about £10bn).
The more I think about it the more I think we have to do it, and start arguing for it..
I could live with that. You?
Yes, pretty much. Some minor caveats: Tempest is probably non-doable and the Americans are thinking about abandoning their next-gen program in favour of continually upgrading F35. So cease all future development and concentrate on adding to, and continually improving what we have. So bring all SA80 rifles up to L85A3 standard, all Challys up to Challenger 3 standard, put cats and traps on the carriers and add drones for refuelling and recon. I haven't a clue what to do with F35 (you can't maintain it on land let alone sea) or Ajax (its shit). But that's just noodling: your plan is sound, and there's nothing more expensive than a second-best army.
In the short term increased number of existing equipment and supplies is needed. Big ticket items like warships and new ranges of planes are much longer term projects. We simply don't have the capacity to build that many more subs or ships very quickly. Then there's the problem of crewing with appropriately skilled personnel.
Equipment becomes obsolete quite quickly, and the recent announcement scrapping ships and aircraft was mostly a recognition that these were near the end of possible service life without major refurbishment. The landing ships were already mothballed.
Some of the drones that are going are only 6 years old, but that simply illustrates how quickly things become obsolete in active war. In 3 years drone warfare has transformed in Ukraine. We don't hear of Bayraktar any more, though they were highly praised just a couple of years back.
I don't think any government will expand the forces that much. There is a problem of recruitment and retention, and one that has got worse rather than better under governments of all colours over the decades.
Sorry I just re-read your comment and it appears I misunderstood it in my answer. Although I still think mass is vital your points were also good
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
At 50-60% we could even get Sharia law
I'm not aware of any large country where that has happened in modern times, though there are certain small examples. There are majoritarian Muslim smaller countries in Europe - Albania, B&H, Kosovo. I'm not sure of the status of Sharia Law in those.
Same sex marriage and civil unions are certainly illegal in Albania, same sex marriage is not legal in Kosovo or Bosnia either so even if not full Sharia LGBT rights would likely regress
LGBT rights are also limited in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, which are all largely Christian, so is it Islam in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, or something about those countries being in the Balkans?
Slovenia is in the Balkans and has same sex marriage and Croatia has civil unions. No Muslim majority nation has same sex marriage.
Women are also discouraged from working with men in the same workplaces in Islam
Slovenia and Croatia are more western looking. I referred you already to Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. You can also add North Macedonia. Moldova, Ukraine and eastwards also have no recognition of same sex marriages. Rights are limited in Slovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The dividing line in Europe is clearly not Muslim/non-Muslim.
Not a single Muslim majority nation on earth has same sex marriage, same sex unions or a female head of state or government.
The dividing line globally is clearly Muslim/non Muslim
Optimist: the cup is half full Pessimist: The cup is half empty Political scientist: it would take thousands of cups to determine whether Nate Silver is better than chance at guessing whether the cup is more full or empty https://bsky.app/profile/jonmellon.bsky.social/post/3lbmrzvj4x32z
We probably need a plan to rebuild the army, navy and to some extent the air force (this is a trickier one that I'll come back to) over a 5-10 year period, with an industrial strategy to boot, otherwise any extra money will simply be absorbed by inflation. On top, we'd need software integration of the defence platforms. Strategic objective should be to protect international and global trade, global stability and British interests worldwide as well as deter a serious "hot" war on the continent or near east, with a large sized force, and the option of a long-term medium sized deployment overseas.
RAF: hypersonic and drone defences, which might be more where the modern RAF needs to go on top of Tempest, if it's still valid, and additional strike capability. I doubt seven front-line squadrons are enough. Of course, we need maritime aircraft.
Royal Navy: is in a pitiful state. The 1998 SDR projected reducing the fleet of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. And we were supposed to get 12 x Type 45 destroyers. But we now actually only have 6 and, I think now, only 12 x frigates, most of which can't put to sea, and 6 x functional HK subs. We need to get back up to 12 x destroyers, 20 x frigates, 12 x attack submarines, four x strategic subs, two amphibious platforms, and a RFA that can sustain them all. We can deploy a serious carrier battlegroup with reserves at any time. Big expansion.
British Army: in an even more pitiful state. At almost every level. Where do you start? Ammo, artillery, fighting vehicles, APCs, tanks and infantry all well below even the most basic establishment levels. The BAOR was about 50k men right though the 1980s and British Forces Germany still 25k men in the 1990s. Whatever way I look at it I think we need the capability for the deployment of two fully equipped heavy war-fighting divisions, with another in reserve and another in training. It probably needs to go back up to about 125,000 regulars which is an expansion of 50,000 men. Massive.
But my fag packet calculations are that we'd need to probably spend 3.5% of GDP ultimately to do all that. So the defence budget need to rise from £57bn per year to about £88-89bn per year or about a 30-32bn increase each year.
I can get there with 2p on the basic rate and the higher rate, so 22p becomes the new basic rate and 42p become the higher rate and 47p the new top rate (raises about £20bn of that) and ending the triple lock (saves about £10bn).
The more I think about it the more I think we have to do it, and start arguing for it..
I could live with that. You?
Yes, pretty much. Some minor caveats: Tempest is probably non-doable and the Americans are thinking about abandoning their next-gen program in favour of continually upgrading F35. So cease all future development and concentrate on adding to, and continually improving what we have. So bring all SA80 rifles up to L85A3 standard, all Challys up to Challenger 3 standard, put cats and traps on the carriers and add drones for refuelling and recon. I haven't a clue what to do with F35 (you can't maintain it on land let alone sea) or Ajax (its shit). But that's just noodling: your plan is sound, and there's nothing more expensive than a second-best army.
I don't see the point of the cats and traps on the carriers.
I think I can foresee anti-drone systems at air bases quite rapidly, and I'd punt for light beam based, or mobile ones deployed tactically (what worked well in Ukraine?). I think I can also see harsher restrictions on drones - Auditors are going to need to watch it, and could be treated as assaults on national security.
I can see Type 32 frigates coming firmly into the programme from the current Hokey-Cokey, as being cost effective.
I can see a further batch of Typhoon being ordered, to latest spec (as Germany?), to bridge a gap. The production lines are still rolling. In addition to a further wave of F35, to Block 4.
Personally, I don't see Tempest being stopped - we are too deep in with Japan / Italy.
Recruitment is a biggie, as is pilot training. As also is air defence, and general fragility caused by concentration of bases to a few airfields and a couple of naval bases.
I think I can see an increased push on CCF in schools, which has been reasonably successfully expanded (aiui) over the last decade. I think I also see something on expansion of reservists.
We have much to learn from Finland and Sweden.
And maybe Ireland will finally get off their arse, and maybe even get a motorised pedalo.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
I'm in Norway and very much enjoying the high levels of trust there are here, such as almost no ticket barriers for anything. People are trusted to have paid for tickets for transport. I hope not too many people are taking advantage of it, particularly tourists.
Are there checks at any point? Germany has a trust system but with very occasional inspections and a chunky fine levied on the spot for someone with an incorrect or no ticket. The point between ab and abc zones on the way to the old Schonefeld airport was always a favourite.
This is a stupid argument. If you think the monarchy is useful then £72mn (a little over £1 per UK resident) really isn't a lot of money to spend on the coronation, an event that we should expect to occur once in a generation.
No harm to King Chuck (not much love either) but I would expect the ‘generation’ between him and his successor to be much shorter than say the one between 2014 and now, let alone between 2014 and any future referendum. The next coronation will provide something of a quandary for suburban Billy who’s just your average millionaire next door, down with the young dads. Not sure acres of gold leaf and some attention seeker with a sword will be a good fit.
I used to say that we could have a serious discussion about the Monarchy when the Queen died. Whilst she was alive her dedication and sense of duty demanded respect from all but the most curmudgeonly (yes, @malcolmg , I mean you).
But now that has happened I really cannot be bothered. We have so many real problems to address as a nation and it would frankly be too self indulgent for words to waste time and energy replacing the Royal family when those problems are not being addressed. We can stick to pointless, irrelevant gestures such as getting rid of the hereditaries in the House of Lords and stagger on.
Parasites all round from Royals to HOL, just a private club to enrich themselves. These bloodsucking arseholes cannot hide their greed and need to be dumped.
Comments
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
I see powerful conservative forces, including conservative religious forces, in many parts of the world, but I don’t see Islam or Islamic countries as being uniquely bad here.
Leon is a racist and has repeatedly said racist things. You want to believe he was just being “clumsy” because you agree with his politics. But, sure, you have already acknowledged that you’re on the same side as Tommy Robinson. If that didn’t give you pause for thought, I don’t know what to say.
Viewing a whole world religion as being problematic, viewing all members of a religious or ethnic group as being dangerous, I think such views are (a) wrong and (b) lead to terrible consequences. I find it very disturbing how many here rush to Islamophobic sentiments. However, I must retire for the evening now. Good night.
'However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.
In a series of questions on the terror threat in Britain, 4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent), and 4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.
Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) said they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
And people scratch their heads as to why so many are out of school.
There seem to be multiple reports from local people of F-15's chasing the objects, on two different nights.
https://xkcd.com/1252/
Perhaps I'll try again tomorrow.
Some kids don't like to be told off and sometimes teachers do need to tell kids off.
And some parents will back the kids up, and not the teacher, when that happens.
First line of my comment
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/nov/23/childrens-development-put-back-by-years-in-england-due-to-failure-of-special-educational-needs-system?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
b) It is difficult to know where to start with the last paragraph. It is gibberish.
Do please repost it again tomorrow
"Look try and use your intelligence man, even if you are a politician": Three to Sir Reginald Styles.
But then you look at Afghani birthrates: TFR of 3.74 as of 2024. One of the highest in the world outside Africa
We all think that orthodox Islam is driven by religious/political movements around the world, but what if it is driven - at least in later years - by barely understood and primal - indeed evolutuonary reactions to population movements eleswhere? It depends whether you believe in group/tribal evolutionary motivations
An observer from Betelgeuse in his drone might observe: "ooh look, humans start dying out with collapsing birth rates if they educate their women, and let them free, that seems to be universal. That's surely why some Muslims especially the Taliban have gone the opposite way, and they have confined their women and turned them into breeding machines, soon the Afghans will outnumber the Germans"
An industrial scale rape and exploitation of young girls and you're more worried about what it might look like because Nick Griffin is on my side? I think its you that needs to get perspective, not me.
There's also much newer polling, from 2024 suggesting that, while Muslims are still more likely than the overall population, to think homosexuality should be illegal, it's only 27% (and a similar number say it would be undesirable). Two different surveys, eight years apart, but you could easily pick out the headline as a halving of the number of Muslims who think homosexuality is illegal.
I wouldn't, because it's more complex, but I also don't think a 2016 survey can predict the future.
- Dalek to the quisling human Controller of England: "There has been a recent drop in production figures...production targets must be maintained!"
- Controller: "Production targets will be reached in the next work period"
- Dalek: "For the next work period production targets will be increased by 10%!"
- Controller: "But that's impossible! If we push the workers any further they will die!"
- Dalek: "Only the weak will die. Inefficient workers slow down production. Obey the Daleks!"
Amazing how a fifty year old children's television story can grasp what adults of today cannot.But I still like you!
And on that ecumenical note, I bid the site goodnight
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1860462068047958086
Certainly there are problems with fanatics and with reactionary attitudes to women and homosexuality, though no doubt attitudes to Trans would fit more neatly with PB's Great Replacementers.
I live in a city that's about a quarter Muslim, varying from very orthodox and traditional to the most nominal of Muslims. It's a tremendous range, and there are delightful people and arseholes at both ends of the spectrum. One reason Liberals like me can engage with people who have archaic views on women and sexuality is because I share a lot of other values with them. The concepts of service to community, family, the importance of humility and the recognition of values beyond consumerism. We have far more in common than that that divides us.
I think the GRT is tosh, and it really doesn't bother me if the percentage of Muslims rises. These are British people and like all other Britons are entitled to their own beliefs and customs as long as they don't try to force them on anyone else. I have a number of very observant Muslim colleagues, male and female, and have never encountered homophobic or misogynist actions from them. That is how it should be.
While I am ~90% sure at least some of the UAP incidents over the decades are examples of non human tech, I wonder whether what we’re seeing here is a secret US anti nuclear capability. Things that can buzz around sensitive areas and turn ICBMs into whizz bangers using electronic interference. The ultimate patriot system. Anyway, “go back to bed, your govt is in control again”.
Clever people say stuff that is out there. Sadly however there are far more idiots who also do. Most of us can usually discriminate between the two and are amazed by the former and can easily identify the latter. A few of us are not so good at it though.
As ever, Nicholas Drummond is good: https://nitter.poast.org/nicholadrummond
@sgfmann
·
2h
The Mail on Sunday: STARMER DECLARES WAR ON BENEFITS BRITAIN #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1860436015032226237
As was realised when Morgenthau presented his plan, a de-industrialised Germany would either require vast amounts of aid in perpetuity or a lot less Germans. Probably 1/3 of the existing population.
The Russians re-industrialised the East for the same reason - cleaning up the toxic mess made (the standards of the 1930s were used until 1989) is ongoing to this day.
People do ever-egg this argument but it is true to say that one modern F35 (once it has spear) can do more than a squadron of tornadoes 20 years ago could; and one Type 45 has an air defence capability beyond that of the whole fleet back then. Of course there is a balancing factor that one ship, for example, can only be in one place at one time, but talking pure numbers, and comparing to the past, is the wrong starting point.
And Drummond is an old fashioned “army first” type who probably wants to rebuild the corps we had in Germany.
Equipment becomes obsolete quite quickly, and the recent announcement scrapping ships and aircraft was mostly a recognition that these were near the end of possible service life without major refurbishment. The landing ships were already mothballed.
Some of the drones that are going are only 6 years old, but that simply illustrates how quickly things become obsolete in active war. In 3 years drone warfare has transformed in Ukraine. We don't hear of Bayraktar any more, though they were highly praised just a couple of years back.
I don't think any government will expand the forces that much. There is a problem of recruitment and retention, and one that has got worse rather than better under governments of all colours over the decades.
The problem isn't capability, it's attritability. It doesn't matter how good it is, it's how many you have left when you blow it up. Any European war in the next ten years will be with the Russians, and they are perfectly willing to throw bodies at you until you drown in their blood.
(a) intensive language and cultural education
and
(b) being extremely proactive at stopping ghettos from forming
So, if you are a (for example) Syrian refugee, you won't be shoved together with a bunch of other Syrian refugees. In fact, you're highly unlikely to have Syrian refugee neighbours.
This is the complete opposite of the approach taken by most countries, where they chuck all the new arrivals from [x] together, and then basically let them be.
NEW THREAD
And Bangladesh did until very recently.
Optimist: the cup is half full
Pessimist: The cup is half empty
Political scientist: it would take thousands of cups to determine whether Nate Silver is better than chance at guessing whether the cup is more full or empty
https://bsky.app/profile/jonmellon.bsky.social/post/3lbmrzvj4x32z
Optimist: the cup is half full
Pessimist: the cup is half empty
Lib Dem: it's a two horse race between the cup being full or empty
https://bsky.app/profile/markpackuk.bsky.social/post/3lbnfzvckck2d
Optimist: the cup is half full
Pessimist: the cup is half empty
Accountant: how full would you like the cup to be?
https://bsky.app/profile/lisac.bsky.social/post/3lbno6vndbk2x
It turned into an ouroboros.
I think I can foresee anti-drone systems at air bases quite rapidly, and I'd punt for light beam based, or mobile ones deployed tactically (what worked well in Ukraine?). I think I can also see harsher restrictions on drones - Auditors are going to need to watch it, and could be treated as assaults on national security.
I can see Type 32 frigates coming firmly into the programme from the current Hokey-Cokey, as being cost effective.
I can see a further batch of Typhoon being ordered, to latest spec (as Germany?), to bridge a gap. The production lines are still rolling. In addition to a further wave of F35, to Block 4.
Personally, I don't see Tempest being stopped - we are too deep in with Japan / Italy.
Recruitment is a biggie, as is pilot training. As also is air defence, and general fragility caused by concentration of bases to a few airfields and a couple of naval bases.
I think I can see an increased push on CCF in schools, which has been reasonably successfully expanded (aiui) over the last decade. I think I also see something on expansion of reservists.
We have much to learn from Finland and Sweden.
And maybe Ireland will finally get off their arse, and maybe even get a motorised pedalo.