Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
The leaders of the West are not doing their duty. It may already be too late, but everyone with an ounce of clout or influence must now use it to end the US-Israel attack on Iran. And let us not forget that those two countries started this war. They attacked, an action which all through history has put the attacker in the wrong.
If the war is not soon stopped, then an economic and political crisis worse than anything since 1945 may well be triggered. It will be accompanied by yet another mass movement of countless refugees into Western Europe. And for what?
Will we never grow out of the Utopian fantasy that we can go stomping round the world, telling other countries what to do? It is as if we have been hypnotised. All someone needs to do is to talk of Winston Churchill or of ‘appeasement’, and grown men and women lose their minds and start howling for war. Some seem to long for it.
In the early moments of Donald Trump’s current spasm, the leaders of Reform UK and the Tory Party instantly piled in to endorse the Trump-Netanyahu assault. They had time to think before they spoke. But they couldn’t be bothered. Like so many modern ‘conservatives’ and ‘patriots’, they have fallen in love with foreign war, quite unaware that war is the enemy of conservatism and the ally of the Left.
For instance, has it still not sunk in that the vast waves of migration from Africa and the Middle East are the direct results of the wars we kept starting or fuelling, in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria? Even now, there are people amid the ruins of their former homes, in their demolished cities, all over Iran, preparing for the long trudge westwards that ends with them struggling aboard a rubber dinghy on the French coast, headed for Kent or Sussex.
You may meet them, sooner than you think, in an English suburb. If you do, it will be a poorer, bleaker place than it is now.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. They shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
I am not so sure about Farage in Wales as I once was. Yes, we love the racism and misogyny, but has the gloss been taken off by Nathan Gill and Farage's recent assertion that Welsh is a foreign language and Welsh language speakers who don't want to speak English can f*** off from where their ancestors came from in 800 AD and earlier. Eight hundred AD some years, it is worth mentioning is before the Huguenot Farage's ancestors left France.it is worth mentioning
Latest Welsh poll earlier this month still has Reform joint top on 26% with Plaid, with Labour third on 20%, followed by the Tories and Greens tied on 10%
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
People are worrying about recession and I'm thinking if Trump's latest threat doesn't work then next one will be nuclear. We are not seeing any meaningful opposition to Trump from within the government or military, so what's going to stop him ordering Tehran to be levelled?
The leaders of the West are not doing their duty. It may already be too late, but everyone with an ounce of clout or influence must now use it to end the US-Israel attack on Iran. And let us not forget that those two countries started this war. They attacked, an action which all through history has put the attacker in the wrong.
If the war is not soon stopped, then an economic and political crisis worse than anything since 1945 may well be triggered. It will be accompanied by yet another mass movement of countless refugees into Western Europe. And for what?
Will we never grow out of the Utopian fantasy that we can go stomping round the world, telling other countries what to do? It is as if we have been hypnotised. All someone needs to do is to talk of Winston Churchill or of ‘appeasement’, and grown men and women lose their minds and start howling for war. Some seem to long for it.
In the early moments of Donald Trump’s current spasm, the leaders of Reform UK and the Tory Party instantly piled in to endorse the Trump-Netanyahu assault. They had time to think before they spoke. But they couldn’t be bothered. Like so many modern ‘conservatives’ and ‘patriots’, they have fallen in love with foreign war, quite unaware that war is the enemy of conservatism and the ally of the Left.
For instance, has it still not sunk in that the vast waves of migration from Africa and the Middle East are the direct results of the wars we kept starting or fuelling, in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria? Even now, there are people amid the ruins of their former homes, in their demolished cities, all over Iran, preparing for the long trudge westwards that ends with them struggling aboard a rubber dinghy on the French coast, headed for Kent or Sussex.
You may meet them, sooner than you think, in an English suburb. If you do, it will be a poorer, bleaker place than it is now.
Oh no, agree with most of what Hitchens says here. Makes me wonder where I am going wrong......
A phrase I have heard people say/seen people write quite often
He's good on the perils of Western interventionism. And, yes, a few other things too. No fan, obviously, but there are plenty of worse pundits. He always tries to be coherent.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
People are worrying about recession and I'm thinking if Trump's latest threat doesn't work then next one will be nuclear. We are not seeing any meaningful opposition to Trump from within the government or military, so what's going to stop him ordering Tehran to be levelled?
A huge lurking worry in my mind. Just surviving Trump2 might be a stretch target. But let's hope that's OTT doomthink. I try to avoid that but I'm not immune to it.
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
People are worrying about recession and I'm thinking if Trump's latest threat doesn't work then next one will be nuclear. We are not seeing any meaningful opposition to Trump from within the government or military, so what's going to stop him ordering Tehran to be levelled?
I honestly think we're looking at a 20-30% chance this "ends" with nukes. As that is the only way for the USA to totally defeat Iran and cow them into complete submission, and take away this dire threat to the global economy
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
"A final conflagration of the Fourth Turning and the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites"
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I've no idea!
What troubles me is that this guy is relatively sensible, IIRC. Not normally given to hysterics. Angry but not sensationalist
Also there are several people talking this way. That we are heading into the most tremendous emergency, worldwide
I find it hard to belive. But I fear that, despite everything, I may have some Normalcy Bias going on
One thing he is absolutely correct about is the potential for global economic devastation precipitated by the destruction of Gulf gas production - something which is well within the capacity of the current combatants, if they are mad enough.
What that would lead to is anyone's guess, but it would not be good.
A sane response to such a disaster (other than avoiding it) would be to restore production as quickly as possible (which would likely take years).
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
I gave my nephew, recently turned six, a 3D world globe puzzle for Christmas (which he enjoyed assembling), and I could tell it was made in China without looking at the box or instructions. How, I hear you ask?
Easy, India's northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh is shown as belonging to China!
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
I was thinking about the next GE. If Labour dont go long to 2029, is there value in Oct 27 or Feb 28? Try and take the hit early and defend London in May 28 from a fresh perspective? Or is it just hang on grimly till the end?
Unless they reclaim a clear poll lead, Labour will of course hang on until 2029 given their massive Commons majority
I suspect Starmer will quit in 2027/2028 and a new leader will go for it in 2028 if they lead the polls which they may well do.
I know most of Pb disagrees with me but I still think fundamentally they have the right approach, they just need more time to bear fruit and they need a newer leader with an ability to sell it.
I’m with @BatteryCorrectHorse. The basics of the Labour Government are sound. It’s events and the handling of them that chip away at the people’s confidence or faith in the Government.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
I am not so sure about Farage in Wales as I once was. Yes, we love the racism and misogyny, but has the gloss been taken off by Nathan Gill and Farage's recent assertion that Welsh is a foreign language and Welsh language speakers who don't want to speak English can f*** off from where their ancestors came from in 800 AD and earlier. Eight hundred AD some years, it is worth mentioning is before the Huguenot Farage's ancestors left France.it is worth mentioning
Latest Welsh poll earlier this month still has Reform joint top on 26% with Plaid, with Labour third on 20%, followed by the Tories and Greens tied on 10%
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It is culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
More long range missiles on the way to Southern Israel
Eighth salvo today its a good job Iran is already defeated
Israel’s military says it has detected a new of missiles fired from Iran towards the country, in what Israeli media says is the eighth salvo since midnight.
The Times of Israel reports that sirens are expected to go off in the south of the country.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
Agreed. Also, I think they continue to control the narrative far more than comparable western empires.
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
Agreed. Also, I think they continue to control the narrative far more than comparable western empires.
Yes, they do a great job of selling themselves as a non-aggressive culture - "we don't send out navies to conquer foreign lands!"
Well, no, that's because you don't have to. You just expand deeper into Asia, by land; eg Tibet, as a very recent example
Russia did exactly the same, into the Caucasus, central Asia and Siberia
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
More long range missiles on the way to Southern Israel
Eighth salvo today its a good job Iran is already defeated
Israel’s military says it has detected a new of missiles fired from Iran towards the country, in what Israeli media says is the eighth salvo since midnight.
The Times of Israel reports that sirens are expected to go off in the south of the country.
Are spelling "missiles" correctly? Defence Secretary and God of War, Hegseth appears to call them "mistles".
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
"A final conflagration of the Fourth Turning and the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites"
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I suspect Leon's elites are different to your elites and to my elites.
For example, we might consider Spectator Columnists as an elite.
I don't wish to denigrate Leon - who is clearly doing all right for himself - when I say this but if Leon is an elite - arguably he is - then so are 75% of the denizens of this board.
I think we should stay out if all wars unless being directly attacked, but how has Sir Keir managed to upset both Trump and Iran? That has to be the worst of both worlds doesn’t it?
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
Hang on, the "loony net zero policies" are Tory policies. Leader after leader after leader. On the day Liz Truss blew up her government it was an opposition debate on Fracking and the SofS stood there are the dispatch lauding their policies on net zero and renewables.
So they're not "loony net zero". They are the established and consensual policies of both parties.
Also worth bearing in mind that although the true loon Ed Miliband has accelerated the retreat from the North Sea, it was the Tories who started this madness with their open ended windfall tax madness.
Indeed on a wider front this is Badenoch's problem. So many of the Labour policies she is now deriding and opposing were initially introduced by the Tories including when she was in Cabinet.
And the electorate rejected them. So you come back with a different offer.
It's not really a problem for Kemi. She wasn't running the previous Tory Government, and she wasn't fronting any of the Net Zero bits. Since becoming leader, she has been clear and on the record in opposing the current Net Zero plans, and wanting to drill in the North Sea. The Government's energy policy is in tatters, and this will be a feeding frenzy. Sir will find it very difficult to move Milliband on, but the longer he takes the worse it will be.
Increasing North Sea drilling would do nothing to help UK energy prices in this time of crisis. Prices are set on global markets and increased North Sea drilling would have little impact on global supply.
I just do not understand why those objecting to drilling in the North Sea cannot see just how many billions in tax it would yield to the treasury
It is economic vandalism not to exploit our own reserves to the full
We need to stop burning fossil fields soon. If we transition away from burning fossil fuels soon, then the price of fossil fuels will plummet and any new drilling in the North Sea will end up not making any money.
That's the rationale. You might disagree with various points in the logic model.
If that's really the rationale, they are completely mental.
There is zero evidence that demand for fossil fuels is dropping at all; the world doesn't appear to have hit peak coal yet, never mind peak oil. And anyway, it's not the government's problem if the wicked capitalists at the oil companies drill some wells and then lose their shirts because the oil price has dropped off a cliff.
I thought is was all about pointless virtue signalling, to demonstrate how green we were that we'd rather pay the Saudi's for oil than extract our own, as that way the CO2 emissions don't count or something (see also offshoring steel production, heavy industry etc). If they actually believe that the licences shouldn't be granted because production won't be profitable as we'll all have stopped using oil, they are even higher on their own supply than I'd realised.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It is culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
Perfectly good points. But remember that we're comparing "sinning" vs "sinned against". Looking at both sides. A net assessment. And China has a lot of the latter to bring into the equation.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Yes, China had a lot of internal warfare, but that might just be because it's history - 5000 years - is so vastly longer and grander than Russia and America, which have only been around 1000 years and 250 years respectively. So they've had more time for some internecine bickering
At this point I think Matt Goodwin is doing a bit. Or he’s incredibly thick.
Professors of Politics are not usually incredibly thick. They are not la creme de la creme, but they are intelligent and know how to reference.
Other posbilities:
1) He's working too many things and is cutting corners, making foolish mistakes as a result;
2) A staffer did it for him.
My recollection of politics professors at University College, Cardiff was mixed. Two of my key professors Dr Roy Jones and Dr Andrew Vincent ( a lovely guy who is still about in Sheffield University I believe) made no sense to me whatsoever. Dr Anne Robinson who became the IOD's Ambassador to BBC Question Time made more sense to me, but not to anyone else. The SDP's Barry Jones on the other hand was a God!
So former academic Matt Goodwin making no sense would seem par for the course.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
I'm not arguing with you about that (not least because I don't have the information). I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
"A final conflagration of the Fourth Turning and the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites"
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I suspect Leon's elites are different to your elites and to my elites.
For example, we might consider Spectator Columnists as an elite.
I don't wish to denigrate Leon - who is clearly doing all right for himself - when I say this but if Leon is an elite - arguably he is - then so are 75% of the denizens of this board.
I was doing alright for myself until this fucking stupid war, which now threatens some highly agreeable travel, that I had planned for later in the year
Fair to say I've gone right off Donald Trump, and I'm slightly less keen on Bibi Netanyahu than I was, as well
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Whoever upthread suggested over history the Chinese empire is 'more sinned against than sinning' is breathtakingly wrong. For thousands of years they have dished out brutality on the scale of the Romans. The bit of history for which they were on the receiving end was in the general scheme of things, pretty brief and comparatively mild.
I think we should stay out if all wars unless being directly attacked, but how has Sir Keir managed to upset both Trump and Iran? That has to be the worst of both worlds doesn’t it?
We severely upset the Iranians several times during the 20th Century, mainly cheating them out of oil revenues, but culminating in 1979.
At this point I think Matt Goodwin is doing a bit. Or he’s incredibly thick.
Professors of Politics are not usually incredibly thick. They are not la creme de la creme, but they are intelligent and know how to reference.
Other posbilities:
1) He's working too many things and is cutting corners, making foolish mistakes as a result;
2) A staffer did it for him.
My recollection of politics professors at University College, Cardiff was mixed. Two of my key professors Dr Roy Jones and Dr Andrew Vincent ( a lovely guy who is still about in Sheffield University I believe) made no sense to me whatsoever. Dr Anne Robinson who became the IOD's Ambassador to BBC Question Time made more sense to me, but not to anyone else. The SDP's Barry Jones on the other hand was a God!
So former academic Matt Goodwin making no sense would seem par for the course.
In the case of academics, I do wonder if (in certain fields) the ability to create nonsense that sounds intelligible, but too-deep-to-understand, is a winning move.
Which in turn argues that their output could be replaced by "AI" for little loss or gain.
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
"A final conflagration of the Fourth Turning and the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites"
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I've no idea!
What troubles me is that this guy is relatively sensible, IIRC. Not normally given to hysterics. Angry but not sensationalist
Also there are several people talking this way. That we are heading into the most tremendous emergency, worldwide
I find it hard to belive. But I fear that, despite everything, I may have some Normalcy Bias going on
It's very worrying and I am worried. About 2 things. Economic and financial collapse. A nuclear war.
Apart from that, all cool here.
Don't forget the killer AI robots.
Oh god yes. But thankfully my sensors tell me that risk is overblown. At least for now. Trump Risk is what we're mainly facing in the near term. The clear and present danger dwarfing all others. It's time limited but that's the only comfort.
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
"A final conflagration of the Fourth Turning and the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites"
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I've no idea!
What troubles me is that this guy is relatively sensible, IIRC. Not normally given to hysterics. Angry but not sensationalist
Also there are several people talking this way. That we are heading into the most tremendous emergency, worldwide
I find it hard to belive. But I fear that, despite everything, I may have some Normalcy Bias going on
It's very worrying and I am worried. About 2 things. Economic and financial collapse. A nuclear war.
Apart from that, all cool here.
Don't forget the killer AI robots.
Oh god yes. But thankfully my sensors tell me that risk is overblown. At least for now. Trump Risk is what we're mainly facing in the near term. The clear and present danger dwarfing all others. It's time limited but that's the only comfort.
You assume its time limited but AI driven biotech may be able to keep him going indefinitely.......
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
Hang on, the "loony net zero policies" are Tory policies. Leader after leader after leader. On the day Liz Truss blew up her government it was an opposition debate on Fracking and the SofS stood there are the dispatch lauding their policies on net zero and renewables.
So they're not "loony net zero". They are the established and consensual policies of both parties.
Also worth bearing in mind that although the true loon Ed Miliband has accelerated the retreat from the North Sea, it was the Tories who started this madness with their open ended windfall tax madness.
Indeed on a wider front this is Badenoch's problem. So many of the Labour policies she is now deriding and opposing were initially introduced by the Tories including when she was in Cabinet.
And the electorate rejected them. So you come back with a different offer.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
I'm not arguing with you about that (not least because I don't have the information). I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
I can tell you! I've been researching
It's not famine, it's literally medico-gastronomic: it's because they regarded the tribes as sub-human (they were very primitive head hunting tribes). So as sub human - more like animals, it became morally permissible to eat them, especially delicate bits like the heart etc - which gave you strength, supposedly. The practise was noted by sober outsiders, including an American consul, James Davidson, and a Canadian presbyterian minister, George Mackay, there are also extant bureaucratic records saying "on this occasion we must not eat human meat" - clearly proving that on some occasions this DID happen
On Mackay: he records coming across a crowd awaiting the execution of an aboriginal warrior, and he noted: "Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine ... the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."
Another amazing fact. Head-hunting in Taiwan persisted into the 1920s
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
I'm not arguing with you about that (not least because I don't have the information). I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
I can tell you! I've been researching
It's not famine, it's literally medico-gastronomic: it's because they regarded the tribes as sub-human (they were very primitive head hunting tribes). So as sub human - more like animals, it became morally permissible to eat them, especially delicate bits like the heart etc - which gave you strength, supposedly. The practise was noted by sober outsiders, including an American consul, James Davidson, and a Canadian presbyterian minister, George Mackay, there are also extant bureaucratic records saying "on this occasion we must not eat human meat" - clearly proving that on some occasions this DID happen
On Mackay: he records coming across a crowd awaiting the execution of an aboriginal warrior, and he noted: "Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine ... the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."
Another amazing fact. Head-hunting in Taiwan persisted into the 1920s
2 posts from UAE’s @AnwarGargash (Presidential advisor) in the last 20 mins
🔷 Iran’s aggression is reshaping Gulf security thinking. This is no longer about a ceasefire. It’s about LONG TERM SECURITY in the Gulf
🔷 The priority is to counter Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, drones and threats to key shipping lanes
🔷 The fallout may be the opposite of what Tehran intended: a more unified Gulf, stronger militaries and deeper security ties with Washington
“Deeper security ties with the US”
A scenario where Iran poses a “permanent state of threat” is inconceivable
Again, this screams "nukes" to me
Because that's the only way to totally subdue Iran and remove it "permanently" as a threat, without sending in 2 million US troops, who would inevitably be defeated a la Vietnamienne, anyway
Jeez. I wish I didn't think this; but I do, increasingly
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
I'm not arguing with you about that (not least because I don't have the information). I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
I can tell you! I've been researching
It's not famine, it's literally medico-gastronomic: it's because they regarded the tribes as sub-human (they were very primitive head hunting tribes). So as sub human - more like animals, it became morally permissible to eat them, especially delicate bits like the heart etc - which gave you strength, supposedly. The practise was noted by sober outsiders, including an American consul, James Davidson, and a Canadian presbyterian minister, George Mackay, there are also extant bureaucratic records saying "on this occasion we must not eat human meat" - clearly proving that on some occasions this DID happen
On Mackay: he records coming across a crowd awaiting the execution of an aboriginal warrior, and he noted: "Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine ... the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."
Another amazing fact. Head-hunting in Taiwan persisted into the 1920s
It brings to mind ancient humans where human bones are found with signs of cannibalism and theories range from religious ritual (as often with archaeologists) desperation/starvation or perhaps as a desecration of their enemy by demonstrating utter victory by ensuring the whole of the enemy isn’t intact or about humiliation.
I’m sure I read that there is a reluctance to look at tribes such as in Papua NG, Taiwan, the Amazon and translate their behaviours onto ancient peoples but in my mind it’s a pretty clear case that they are the best places to look to understand the past.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Whoever upthread suggested over history the Chinese empire is 'more sinned against than sinning' is breathtakingly wrong. For thousands of years they have dished out brutality on the scale of the Romans. The bit of history for which they were on the receiving end was in the general scheme of things, pretty brief and comparatively mild.
Yes, but we're assessing relative to others. All empires are net abusers. People will tend to view it depending on where they're standing. In China, for example, they'll speak none too kindly (historically) of the British and the Japanese.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
I'm not arguing with you about that (not least because I don't have the information). I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
I can tell you! I've been researching
It's not famine, it's literally medico-gastronomic: it's because they regarded the tribes as sub-human (they were very primitive head hunting tribes). So as sub human - more like animals, it became morally permissible to eat them, especially delicate bits like the heart etc - which gave you strength, supposedly. The practise was noted by sober outsiders, including an American consul, James Davidson, and a Canadian presbyterian minister, George Mackay, there are also extant bureaucratic records saying "on this occasion we must not eat human meat" - clearly proving that on some occasions this DID happen
On Mackay: he records coming across a crowd awaiting the execution of an aboriginal warrior, and he noted: "Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine ... the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."
Another amazing fact. Head-hunting in Taiwan persisted into the 1920s
2 posts from UAE’s @AnwarGargash (Presidential advisor) in the last 20 mins
🔷 Iran’s aggression is reshaping Gulf security thinking. This is no longer about a ceasefire. It’s about LONG TERM SECURITY in the Gulf
🔷 The priority is to counter Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, drones and threats to key shipping lanes
🔷 The fallout may be the opposite of what Tehran intended: a more unified Gulf, stronger militaries and deeper security ties with Washington
“Deeper security ties with the US”
A scenario where Iran poses a “permanent state of threat” is inconceivable
Encountered quite a substantial pro-Iranian opposition demo in Newcastle yesterday. Royalist flags and pictures of Reza Pahlavi by the Grey monument. And, hundreds, if not thousands, of photographs of murdered young people, on the railings down by the Tyne. Typical snaps of twenty-somethings, all smiles and optimism. But the beardies got them.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
I'm not arguing with you about that (not least because I don't have the information). I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
I can tell you! I've been researching
It's not famine, it's literally medico-gastronomic: it's because they regarded the tribes as sub-human (they were very primitive head hunting tribes). So as sub human - more like animals, it became morally permissible to eat them, especially delicate bits like the heart etc - which gave you strength, supposedly. The practise was noted by sober outsiders, including an American consul, James Davidson, and a Canadian presbyterian minister, George Mackay, there are also extant bureaucratic records saying "on this occasion we must not eat human meat" - clearly proving that on some occasions this DID happen
On Mackay: he records coming across a crowd awaiting the execution of an aboriginal warrior, and he noted: "Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine ... the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."
Another amazing fact. Head-hunting in Taiwan persisted into the 1920s
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
"A final conflagration of the Fourth Turning and the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites"
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I've no idea!
What troubles me is that this guy is relatively sensible, IIRC. Not normally given to hysterics. Angry but not sensationalist
Also there are several people talking this way. That we are heading into the most tremendous emergency, worldwide
I find it hard to belive. But I fear that, despite everything, I may have some Normalcy Bias going on
It's very worrying and I am worried. About 2 things. Economic and financial collapse. A nuclear war.
Apart from that, all cool here.
Don't forget the killer AI robots.
Oh god yes. But thankfully my sensors tell me that risk is overblown. At least for now. Trump Risk is what we're mainly facing in the near term. The clear and present danger dwarfing all others. It's time limited but that's the only comfort.
You assume its time limited but AI driven biotech may be able to keep him going indefinitely.......
It feels that way now tbh.
To paraphrase 1984: it's like a blubbery orange arse squatting on our collective face ... forever.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Whoever upthread suggested over history the Chinese empire is 'more sinned against than sinning' is breathtakingly wrong. For thousands of years they have dished out brutality on the scale of the Romans. The bit of history for which they were on the receiving end was in the general scheme of things, pretty brief and comparatively mild.
Yes, but we're assessing relative to others. All empires are net abusers. People will tend to view it depending on where they're standing. In China, for example, they'll speak none too kindly (historically) of the British and the Japanese.
Can't recall anything especially vicious from the Iranians, in their previous incarnation as Persians, but I'm happy to be informed otherwise.
2 posts from UAE’s @AnwarGargash (Presidential advisor) in the last 20 mins
🔷 Iran’s aggression is reshaping Gulf security thinking. This is no longer about a ceasefire. It’s about LONG TERM SECURITY in the Gulf
🔷 The priority is to counter Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, drones and threats to key shipping lanes
🔷 The fallout may be the opposite of what Tehran intended: a more unified Gulf, stronger militaries and deeper security ties with Washington
“Deeper security ties with the US”
A scenario where Iran poses a “permanent state of threat” is inconceivable
Again, this screams "nukes" to me
Because that's the only way to totally subdue Iran and remove it "permanently" as a threat, without sending in 2 million US troops, who would inevitably be defeated a la Vietnamienne, anyway
Jeez. I wish I didn't think this; but I do, increasingly
Well, yes, but what would that do for the Donald's lusted-after Nobel Peace Prize prospects? Gotta be practical. Nukes ain't gonna deliver.
(The one handed over by the duped Venezualan lassie doesn't really count, does it?)
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
Hang on, the "loony net zero policies" are Tory policies. Leader after leader after leader. On the day Liz Truss blew up her government it was an opposition debate on Fracking and the SofS stood there are the dispatch lauding their policies on net zero and renewables.
So they're not "loony net zero". They are the established and consensual policies of both parties.
Also worth bearing in mind that although the true loon Ed Miliband has accelerated the retreat from the North Sea, it was the Tories who started this madness with their open ended windfall tax madness.
Indeed on a wider front this is Badenoch's problem. So many of the Labour policies she is now deriding and opposing were initially introduced by the Tories including when she was in Cabinet.
And the electorate rejected them. So you come back with a different offer.
It's not really a problem for Kemi. She wasn't running the previous Tory Government, and she wasn't fronting any of the Net Zero bits. Since becoming leader, she has been clear and on the record in opposing the current Net Zero plans, and wanting to drill in the North Sea. The Government's energy policy is in tatters, and this will be a feeding frenzy. Sir will find it very difficult to move Milliband on, but the longer he takes the worse it will be.
Increasing North Sea drilling would do nothing to help UK energy prices in this time of crisis. Prices are set on global markets and increased North Sea drilling would have little impact on global supply.
Except this is not strictly true in reality. Or at least it would not be if we had kept a sensible energy policy.
One of the consequences of shutting down the UK North Sea has been the massive knock on effect on refineries. This has not yet impacted petrol refining but has massively reduced the capacity for diesel refining. So we have to import a lot more diesel which makes it both more expensive on a day to day basis and more prone to the impact of sudden jumps in the oil price.
This is why the price of diesel has jumped far more than petrol.
And given that so much of our distribution network relies on diesel transport this is also why the issues in the Middle East will have a much bigger effect on inflation..
Thank you Viewcode for your header can I make four comments only (no time to write a book) and confined to Para. 1.
1) The judgment did not make the decision that Susan was not a 'biological female'. It made the judgment that particular wording in the act only applied to how people biologically are. SFAICS the court made the ontological judgment that a person born with the relevant male equipment and the relevant word on the birth certificate is born male and biologically stays that way. If the biological distinction into classes governed by the words 'male' and 'female' is makeable at all (and legally it is) then once in place it stays. Just like a dog is always a dog even if you deem it to be a cat (as in the Cambridge notice: 'dogs are not permitted on the lawns, guide dogs are deemed to be cats').
2) The court was deciding about the meaning of words in particular cases of their use, not on the substance of things, doing their best to decide what the legislation says, and what a hazy parliament may have meant, regardless of whether the end state is confused. This can be difficult because words are slippery and their use can be equivocal.
3) If a judgment reveals that words in a statute are not adequate to cover whatever contemporary thought thinks they should cover, then a short statute providing a clear new definition of the word is all that is required. If it is uncontroversial it can be done in a week. If it isn't then it shows that the Supreme Court are being asked to solve something that can't be solved by diktat.
4) it is possible that the real problem is almost none of the things that get discussed, but the intractable difficulty of giving people rights and then discovering that some people you don't trust to use them well are relying on them.
Fair to say this dude is not OVER-optimistic about the Iran War sequelae
"Risible - and frighteningly woolly thinking for a Hudson Institute scholar. Repeat after me: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is NOT the deterrent. The strategic aim of Iran is to stop the flow of oil through it in order to cause pain. Closure is just ONE means of doing so. THE REAL DETERRENT is the destruction of Gulf oil and gas infrastructure so that hydrocarbons do not reach the global economy IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE STRAIT IS OPEN OR NOT.
"If Iran pushes that button in response to some dumb Trump-Bibi escalation, we can expect GLOBAL depression. This in turn means mass starvation in the Third World, which in turn leads to a worldwide equivalent of the Arab Spring. In the developed world, ex-the, Russia and maybe China, it means mass unemployment, travel restrictions, mandatory WFH, and the victory for far more extreme versions of populism in Europe. It means command economies. It means aggressive, militaristic efforts to secure important national resources, and war when such efforts are disputed. It means the forced rewiring of the entire postwar civilisation. It is the final conflagration of the Fourth Turning. It is the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites (per @Peter_Turchin)."
"A final conflagration of the Fourth Turning and the violent sweeping away of the existing excess elites"
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I suspect Leon's elites are different to your elites and to my elites.
For example, we might consider Spectator Columnists as an elite.
I don't wish to denigrate Leon - who is clearly doing all right for himself - when I say this but if Leon is an elite - arguably he is - then so are 75% of the denizens of this board.
I was doing alright for myself until this fucking stupid war, which now threatens some highly agreeable travel, that I had planned for later in the year
Fair to say I've gone right off Donald Trump, and I'm slightly less keen on Bibi Netanyahu than I was, as well
Fair to say that it would be impossible for me to be less keen on Bibi Netanyahu than I am already.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Whoever upthread suggested over history the Chinese empire is 'more sinned against than sinning' is breathtakingly wrong. For thousands of years they have dished out brutality on the scale of the Romans. The bit of history for which they were on the receiving end was in the general scheme of things, pretty brief and comparatively mild.
Yes, but we're assessing relative to others. All empires are net abusers. People will tend to view it depending on where they're standing. In China, for example, they'll speak none too kindly (historically) of the British and the Japanese.
Can't recall anything especially vicious from the Iranians, in their previous incarnation as Persians, but I'm happy to be informed otherwise.
The Ancient Persians liberated the Jews from slavery in Babylon.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Whoever upthread suggested over history the Chinese empire is 'more sinned against than sinning' is breathtakingly wrong. For thousands of years they have dished out brutality on the scale of the Romans. The bit of history for which they were on the receiving end was in the general scheme of things, pretty brief and comparatively mild.
Yes, but we're assessing relative to others. All empires are net abusers. People will tend to view it depending on where they're standing. In China, for example, they'll speak none too kindly (historically) of the British and the Japanese.
Can't recall anything especially vicious from the Iranians, in their previous incarnation as Persians, but I'm happy to be informed otherwise.
Well, Darius the Great, and his son Xerxes I, didn't mess around. For instance:
"After Thermopylae, Athens was captured. Most of the Athenians had abandoned the city and fled to the island of Salamis before Xerxes arrived. A small group attempted to defend the Athenian Acropolis, but they were defeated. Xerxes ordered the Destruction of Athens and burnt the city, leaving an archaeologically attested destruction layer, known as the Perserschutt."
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Whoever upthread suggested over history the Chinese empire is 'more sinned against than sinning' is breathtakingly wrong. For thousands of years they have dished out brutality on the scale of the Romans. The bit of history for which they were on the receiving end was in the general scheme of things, pretty brief and comparatively mild.
Yes, but we're assessing relative to others. All empires are net abusers. People will tend to view it depending on where they're standing. In China, for example, they'll speak none too kindly (historically) of the British and the Japanese.
Can't recall anything especially vicious from the Iranians, in their previous incarnation as Persians, but I'm happy to be informed otherwise.
depends which Persian Empire you mean, but they were fairly typical in the "If you shut up and pay taxes, OKish. If you don't we rm -rf you until you get with the whole shut-up-and-pay-taxes thing"
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
Hang on, the "loony net zero policies" are Tory policies. Leader after leader after leader. On the day Liz Truss blew up her government it was an opposition debate on Fracking and the SofS stood there are the dispatch lauding their policies on net zero and renewables.
So they're not "loony net zero". They are the established and consensual policies of both parties.
Also worth bearing in mind that although the true loon Ed Miliband has accelerated the retreat from the North Sea, it was the Tories who started this madness with their open ended windfall tax madness.
Indeed on a wider front this is Badenoch's problem. So many of the Labour policies she is now deriding and opposing were initially introduced by the Tories including when she was in Cabinet.
And the electorate rejected them. So you come back with a different offer.
It's not really a problem for Kemi. She wasn't running the previous Tory Government, and she wasn't fronting any of the Net Zero bits. Since becoming leader, she has been clear and on the record in opposing the current Net Zero plans, and wanting to drill in the North Sea. The Government's energy policy is in tatters, and this will be a feeding frenzy. Sir will find it very difficult to move Milliband on, but the longer he takes the worse it will be.
Increasing North Sea drilling would do nothing to help UK energy prices in this time of crisis. Prices are set on global markets and increased North Sea drilling would have little impact on global supply.
Except this is not strictly true in reality. Or at least it would not be if we had kept a sensible energy policy.
One of the consequences of shutting down the UK North Sea has been the massive knock on effect on refineries. This has not yet impacted petrol refining but has massively reduced the capacity for diesel refining. So we have to import a lot more diesel which makes it both more expensive on a day to day basis and more prone to the impact of sudden jumps in the oil price.
This is why the price of diesel has jumped far more than petrol.
And given that so much of our distribution network relies on diesel transport this is also why the issues in the Middle East will have a much bigger effect on inflation..
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
I'm not arguing with you about that (not least because I don't have the information). I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
I can tell you! I've been researching
It's not famine, it's literally medico-gastronomic: it's because they regarded the tribes as sub-human (they were very primitive head hunting tribes). So as sub human - more like animals, it became morally permissible to eat them, especially delicate bits like the heart etc - which gave you strength, supposedly. The practise was noted by sober outsiders, including an American consul, James Davidson, and a Canadian presbyterian minister, George Mackay, there are also extant bureaucratic records saying "on this occasion we must not eat human meat" - clearly proving that on some occasions this DID happen
On Mackay: he records coming across a crowd awaiting the execution of an aboriginal warrior, and he noted: "Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine ... the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."
Another amazing fact. Head-hunting in Taiwan persisted into the 1920s
And it was the aboriginal Taiwanese who spread out to become the Polynesians.
Malayo-Polynesian languages were not spoken in Taiwan, only the Formosan branch of Austronesian.
I don't know enough to debate in detail and Mrs C is currently doing interesting, and potentially flavourful, things to the carcass of a chicken, so my time is limited, but I thought Austronesian was a precursor of Malayo-Polynesian?
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
Hang on, the "loony net zero policies" are Tory policies. Leader after leader after leader. On the day Liz Truss blew up her government it was an opposition debate on Fracking and the SofS stood there are the dispatch lauding their policies on net zero and renewables.
So they're not "loony net zero". They are the established and consensual policies of both parties.
Also worth bearing in mind that although the true loon Ed Miliband has accelerated the retreat from the North Sea, it was the Tories who started this madness with their open ended windfall tax madness.
Indeed on a wider front this is Badenoch's problem. So many of the Labour policies she is now deriding and opposing were initially introduced by the Tories including when she was in Cabinet.
And the electorate rejected them. So you come back with a different offer.
It's not really a problem for Kemi. She wasn't running the previous Tory Government, and she wasn't fronting any of the Net Zero bits. Since becoming leader, she has been clear and on the record in opposing the current Net Zero plans, and wanting to drill in the North Sea. The Government's energy policy is in tatters, and this will be a feeding frenzy. Sir will find it very difficult to move Milliband on, but the longer he takes the worse it will be.
Increasing North Sea drilling would do nothing to help UK energy prices in this time of crisis. Prices are set on global markets and increased North Sea drilling would have little impact on global supply.
Except this is not strictly true in reality. Or at least it would not be if we had kept a sensible energy policy.
One of the consequences of shutting down the UK North Sea has been the massive knock on effect on refineries. This has not yet impacted petrol refining but has massively reduced the capacity for diesel refining. So we have to import a lot more diesel which makes it both more expensive on a day to day basis and more prone to the impact of sudden jumps in the oil price.
This is why the price of diesel has jumped far more than petrol.
And given that so much of our distribution network relies on diesel transport this is also why the issues in the Middle East will have a much bigger effect on inflation..
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
I don't know the context of those accounts of cannibalism in 19thC Formosa - but cannibalism was, several times during the century, widespread in China, as a symptom and result of devastating famines.
(See also those of the 17thC.)
The Taiwanese cannibalism is historically verified. It really happened
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
I'm not arguing with you about that (not least because I don't have the information). I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
I can tell you! I've been researching
It's not famine, it's literally medico-gastronomic: it's because they regarded the tribes as sub-human (they were very primitive head hunting tribes). So as sub human - more like animals, it became morally permissible to eat them, especially delicate bits like the heart etc - which gave you strength, supposedly. The practise was noted by sober outsiders, including an American consul, James Davidson, and a Canadian presbyterian minister, George Mackay, there are also extant bureaucratic records saying "on this occasion we must not eat human meat" - clearly proving that on some occasions this DID happen
On Mackay: he records coming across a crowd awaiting the execution of an aboriginal warrior, and he noted: "Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine ... the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."
Another amazing fact. Head-hunting in Taiwan persisted into the 1920s
And it was the aboriginal Taiwanese who spread out to become the Polynesians.
Malayo-Polynesian languages were not spoken in Taiwan, only the Formosan branch of Austronesian.
I don't know enough to debate in detail and Mrs C is currently doing interesting, and potentially flavourful, things to the carcass of a chicken, so my time is limited, but I thought Austronesian was a precursor of Malayo-Polynesian?
Austronesian is the language family, like the Indo-European family.
Formosan and Malayo-Polynesian are the two main branches of that family (like Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Iranian in Indo-European).
2 posts from UAE’s @AnwarGargash (Presidential advisor) in the last 20 mins
🔷 Iran’s aggression is reshaping Gulf security thinking. This is no longer about a ceasefire. It’s about LONG TERM SECURITY in the Gulf
🔷 The priority is to counter Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, drones and threats to key shipping lanes
🔷 The fallout may be the opposite of what Tehran intended: a more unified Gulf, stronger militaries and deeper security ties with Washington
“Deeper security ties with the US”
A scenario where Iran poses a “permanent state of threat” is inconceivable
Again, this screams "nukes" to me
Because that's the only way to totally subdue Iran and remove it "permanently" as a threat, without sending in 2 million US troops, who would inevitably be defeated a la Vietnamienne, anyway
Jeez. I wish I didn't think this; but I do, increasingly
If Saudi had them, would Iran be closing the Straits?
Maybe the Trump clan will deliver nukes to Riyadh for their billions in gratuities. Then problem belong GCC.
In the late 19th century, Han Chinese settlers on Taiwan would EAT the locals, as they thought it would confer strength - eating certain desirable parts of these brave warrior tribesmen. They also boiled the meat down to make a soup, that supposedly prevented malaria
It's good that those sort of practices have gone out of fashion.
What amazes me is how this fact is barely known. I only found out coz I was in Taiwan and I did a lot of deep reading. Then discovered this
If it was an atrocity committed by western imperialists it would be in every single history book and endlessly cited as an example of hideous colonialist depravity
In China? Meh. TThey shrug
More sinned against than sinning, China, in the grand sweep of things over recorded time. But, yes. they've had their moments.
This is highly disoutable. If you look at Chinese imperialist atrocities over 3000 years, it's a long and extraordinary list, much of it barely known
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Of course lots of nasty stuff. But what I mean is on the whole and relative to other great nations, empires and powers.
I disagree. China's imperial history is easily as brutal as anything in the west - or the Mughals or Ottomans
What makes it less visible is
1. It feels culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
I think that's essentially true, though warring states, and subsequent struggles for control of empire (which is a lot of that history) is really quite different from the building of the Russian and American empires.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
Whoever upthread suggested over history the Chinese empire is 'more sinned against than sinning' is breathtakingly wrong. For thousands of years they have dished out brutality on the scale of the Romans. The bit of history for which they were on the receiving end was in the general scheme of things, pretty brief and comparatively mild.
Yes, but we're assessing relative to others. All empires are net abusers. People will tend to view it depending on where they're standing. In China, for example, they'll speak none too kindly (historically) of the British and the Japanese.
Can't recall anything especially vicious from the Iranians, in their previous incarnation as Persians, but I'm happy to be informed otherwise.
Well, Darius the Great, and his son Xerxes I, didn't mess around. For instance:
"After Thermopylae, Athens was captured. Most of the Athenians had abandoned the city and fled to the island of Salamis before Xerxes arrived. A small group attempted to defend the Athenian Acropolis, but they were defeated. Xerxes ordered the Destruction of Athens and burnt the city, leaving an archaeologically attested destruction layer, known as the Perserschutt."
Comments
However, the people you are allying yourselves with do not want to also use renewables.
In that sense, Labour have a window here should they choose to use it. Let’s see.
What troubles me is that this guy is relatively sensible, IIRC. Not normally given to hysterics. Angry but not sensationalist
Also there are several people talking this way. That we are heading into the most tremendous emergency, worldwide
I find it hard to belive. But I fear that, despite everything, I may have some Normalcy Bias going on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Senedd_election
eg Ever heard of this? Me neither, til very recently
"The Dzungar genocide (Chinese: 準噶爾滅族; pinyin: Zhǔngáěr mièzú) was the mass extermination of the Dzungar people, a confederation of Oirat Mongol tribes, by the Qing dynasty.[3]
The Dzungar Khanate was a confederation of several Tibetan Buddhist Oirat Mongol tribes that emerged in the early 17th century, and the last great nomadic empire in Asia. Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar population, or around 500,000 to 800,000 people, were killed by a combination of warfare and disease during or after the Qing conquest in 1755–1757.[2][5] After wiping out the native population of Dzungaria, the Qing government then resettled Han, Hui, Uyghur, Salar and Sibe people on state farms in Dzungaria, along with Manchu Bannermen to repopulate the area."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide
I am a great admirer of China's magnificently ancient and storied civilisation. Also, steamed clams in rice wine, mm
However, "more sinned against that sinning"?? A lot of China's neighbours - some now absorbed into China - would disagree
Israel will, of course, happily cheer this on
What that would lead to is anyone's guess, but it would not be good.
A sane response to such a disaster (other than avoiding it) would be to restore production as quickly as possible (which would likely take years).
That would be a best case scenario.
Apart from that, all cool here.
Easy, India's northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh is shown as belonging to China!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arunachal_Pradesh
(See also those of the 17thC.)
What makes it less visible is
1. It is culturally remote to us, we don't instantly grasp who or what the "Dzungar" are
and
2. Chinese imperialism has been land-based and contiguous (like Russian and American imperialism). ie they invade and conquer neighbouring lands and expand thereby. That *feels* less aggressive than oceanic imperialism as done by the Brits and French, but the feeling is an illusion
There are multiple credible reports from various sources, some quite unpleasantly detailed. I'll spare the forum the recipes
Eighth salvo today its a good job Iran is already defeated
Israel’s military says it has detected a new of missiles fired from Iran towards the country, in what Israeli media says is the eighth salvo since midnight.
The Times of Israel reports that sirens are expected to go off in the south of the country.
For example, we might consider Spectator Columnists as an elite.
(h/t @johnpmerrick) bossman @GoodwinMJ left the ChatGPT in the url in his references hahaha
At this point I think Matt Goodwin is doing a bit. Or he’s incredibly thick.
Well, no, that's because you don't have to. You just expand deeper into Asia, by land; eg Tibet, as a very recent example
Russia did exactly the same, into the Caucasus, central Asia and Siberia
Other posbilities:
1) He's working too many things and is cutting corners, making foolish mistakes as a result;
2) A staffer did it for him.
Genghis Khan is obviously a massive and brutal exception/anomaly to that dynamic (and not Chinese).
There is zero evidence that demand for fossil fuels is dropping at all; the world doesn't appear to have hit peak coal yet, never mind peak oil. And anyway, it's not the government's problem if the wicked capitalists at the oil companies drill some wells and then lose their shirts because the oil price has dropped off a cliff.
I thought is was all about pointless virtue signalling, to demonstrate how green we were that we'd rather pay the Saudi's for oil than extract our own, as that way the CO2 emissions don't count or something (see also offshoring steel production, heavy industry etc). If they actually believe that the licences shouldn't be granted because production won't be profitable as we'll all have stopped using oil, they are even higher on their own supply than I'd realised.
WELKER: Do you think it's appropriate for the president to celebrate the death of a Bronze Star, Purple Heart recipient who served in Vietnam?
BESSENT: Neither one of us can understand what has been done to the president and his family
WELKER: But is it appropriate for the president to celebrate the death of any American citizen?
BESSENT: Give what has been done to President Trump and his family, it is impossible for either of us to understand what he's been through
WELKER: So you don't think there's anything wrong with a post saying, 'Good. Robert Mueller's dead'?
BESSENT: We should have empathy for what's been done to the president and his family
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2035724961537577082
So former academic Matt Goodwin making no sense would seem par for the course.
First up - build the Saunders Roe P.192 Queen. A flying boat with 24 engines. 1000 passengers. And lots of cocktail bars.
The pitch - my lunacy is far more fun than Donald Trump's
I was more curious about the background circumstances, rather than the practical details.
Fair to say I've gone right off Donald Trump, and I'm slightly less keen on Bibi Netanyahu than I was, as well
Which in turn argues that their output could be replaced by "AI" for little loss or gain.
2 posts from UAE’s @AnwarGargash (Presidential advisor) in the last 20 mins
🔷 Iran’s aggression is reshaping Gulf security thinking. This is no longer about a ceasefire. It’s about LONG TERM SECURITY in the Gulf
🔷 The priority is to counter Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, drones and threats to key shipping lanes
🔷 The fallout may be the opposite of what Tehran intended: a more unified Gulf, stronger militaries and deeper security ties with Washington
“Deeper security ties with the US”
A scenario where Iran poses a “permanent state of threat” is inconceivable
Rex Tillerson at a push.
It's not famine, it's literally medico-gastronomic: it's because they regarded the tribes as sub-human (they were very primitive head hunting tribes). So as sub human - more like animals, it became morally permissible to eat them, especially delicate bits like the heart etc - which gave you strength, supposedly. The practise was noted by sober outsiders, including an American consul, James Davidson, and a Canadian presbyterian minister, George Mackay, there are also extant bureaucratic records saying "on this occasion we must not eat human meat" - clearly proving that on some occasions this DID happen
On Mackay: he records coming across a crowd awaiting the execution of an aboriginal warrior, and he noted: "Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine ... the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."
Another amazing fact. Head-hunting in Taiwan persisted into the 1920s
https://romanization.com/books/crook/headhunters.html
Because that's the only way to totally subdue Iran and remove it "permanently" as a threat, without sending in 2 million US troops, who would inevitably be defeated a la Vietnamienne, anyway
Jeez. I wish I didn't think this; but I do, increasingly
I’m sure I read that there is a reluctance to look at tribes such as in Papua NG, Taiwan, the Amazon and translate their behaviours onto ancient peoples but in my mind it’s a pretty clear case that they are the best places to look to understand the past.
Exiled teacher seemed quite hopeful of regime change. Well, we'll see.
I passed through a village called Polbathic en route. Thought it sounded familiar. the I remembered.
The Meaning of Liff.
I even remembered the definition: the ability to manipulate bath taps using only your toes.
To paraphrase 1984: it's like a blubbery orange arse squatting on our collective face ... forever.
(The one handed over by the duped Venezualan lassie doesn't really count, does it?)
1) The judgment did not make the decision that Susan was not a 'biological female'. It made the judgment that particular wording in the act only applied to how people biologically are. SFAICS the court made the ontological judgment that a person born with the relevant male equipment and the relevant word on the birth certificate is born male and biologically stays that way. If the biological distinction into classes governed by the words 'male' and 'female' is makeable at all (and legally it is) then once in place it stays. Just like a dog is always a dog even if you deem it to be a cat (as in the Cambridge notice: 'dogs are not permitted on the lawns, guide dogs are deemed to be cats').
2) The court was deciding about the meaning of words in particular cases of their use, not on the substance of things, doing their best to decide what the legislation says, and what a hazy parliament may have meant, regardless of whether the end state is confused. This can be difficult because words are slippery and their use can be equivocal.
3) If a judgment reveals that words in a statute are not adequate to cover whatever contemporary thought thinks they should cover, then a short statute providing a clear new definition of the word is all that is required. If it is uncontroversial it can be done in a week. If it isn't then it shows that the Supreme Court are being asked to solve something that can't be solved by diktat.
4) it is possible that the real problem is almost none of the things that get discussed, but the intractable difficulty of giving people rights and then discovering that some people you don't trust to use them well are relying on them.
Or Trump.
"After Thermopylae, Athens was captured. Most of the Athenians had abandoned the city and fled to the island of Salamis before Xerxes arrived. A small group attempted to defend the Athenian Acropolis, but they were defeated. Xerxes ordered the Destruction of Athens and burnt the city, leaving an archaeologically attested destruction layer, known as the Perserschutt."
Your basic Empiring, really.
Formosan and Malayo-Polynesian are the two main branches of that family (like Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Iranian in Indo-European).
Maybe the Trump clan will deliver nukes to Riyadh for their billions in gratuities. Then problem belong GCC.