Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
But at the wealthier end there has been an explosion in second home, BTL and holiday let ownership, leaving fewer homes per person available for younger folk.
Probably bigger still is under occupancy. There's little financial incentive to move to a smaller place. Mrs Foxy and I have 4 bedrooms between us , and have overnight guests a few times a year.
I have never understood why the government doesn't provide much more incentives for nudging people as they get older into two things a) not going directly from working full time to permanently retired, rather making the process a gradual one and b) downsizing to smaller houses / more suitable ones for being older e.g. bungalows.
When we had all the reforms to pension age, they could have also used it as an opportunity to deploy these nudges so that people in their 60s gradually go from full time to part time to retired over 10 years.
That's the way the NHS pension now works. It's possible to take "partial retirement" go part time and collect some pension. I did last year and it really suits. I will gradually shed commitments over the next years until finally fully retired.
It's a model that would work well for others.
I doubt many employers would be against such schemes. They value having highly experience employees and in white collar jobs WFH means they don't even need to do the commute. For other jobs having the older employee gradually retire enables training the next generation and handover of responsibilities over the course of an extended period.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
But at the wealthier end there has been an explosion in second home, BTL and holiday let ownership, leaving fewer homes per person available for younger folk.
Probably bigger still is under occupancy. There's little financial incentive to move to a smaller place. Mrs Foxy and I have 4 bedrooms between us , and have overnight guests a few times a year.
I have never understood why the government doesn't provide much more incentives for nudging people as they get older into two things a) not going directly from working full time to permanently retired, rather making the process a gradual one and b) downsizing to smaller houses / more suitable ones for being older e.g. bungalows.
When we had all the reforms to pension age, they could have also used it as an opportunity to deploy these nudges so that people in their 60s gradually go from full time to part time to fully retired over 10 years. In most cases this is also better for the individual as doing a day or a two a week of work is a benefit for their cognitive and physical health.
In the Enoch Powell interview I linked to he forecasts the madness of wealthy pensioners getting equal state benefits, and calls for the state pension to be means tested (I think)
Enoch Powell was cut from different cloth to other politicians of his day let alone ours.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Just the other day I heard that a second cousin had been in a coma for several weeks and her family and doctors were preparing to switch off the life support when one of them noticed a flicker in her eye ... And now though still in hospital she's sitting up and conversing normally with visitors. It makes me shudder to think that the eye flicker might never have been noticed.
A friend of mine had a stroke while septicaemic, and was unconscious (though spontaneously breathing). When I saw him I did everything I could to get a reaction out of him in case he was "locked in". No reaction at all. Six months later he came round and could hold a pretty normal conversation, though paraplegic. So it does happen.
There's a remarkable book "The Butterfly and the Diving Bell" written by a former editor of French Vogue who could only move one eye. It's surprisingly positive and life affirming. He lived some years like that, and seemed to have quality of life.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Just the other day I heard that a second cousin had been in a coma for several weeks and her family and doctors were preparing to switch off the life support when one of them noticed a flicker in her eye ... And now though still in hospital she's sitting up and conversing normally with visitors. It makes me shudder to think that the eye flicker might never have been noticed.
A friend of mine had a stroke while septicaemic, and was unconscious (though spontaneously breathing). When I saw him I did everything I could to get a reaction out of him in case he was "locked in". No reaction at all. Six months later he came round and could hold a pretty normal conversation, though paraplegic. So it does happen.
There's a remarkable book "The Butterfly and the Diving Bell" written by a former editor of French Vogue who could only move one eye. It's surprisingly positive and life affirming. He lived some years like that, and seemed to have quality of life.
There was a film version of it about 20 years ago.
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
Doubtful as most smokers probably die before being old enough to get dementia, the cause of the increase in dementia is nothing more than medical science keeping people alive too long. Dementia was not a big issue in the 70's and 80's when more people smoked
Perhaps more than an age effect – I dimly recall smoking being a protective factor for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or one of those brain lurgies.
Alzheimers.
Though probably the apparent benefit was survival bias. Not many active smokers live long enough to get dementia.
So do you give advice to smoking patients....you should give up so you get chance to get dementia?
Carry on Smoking. Pay more tax. Die early and save the state the cost of pension and healthcare. 👍
Smoking is good for you. Here is Tommy Hampson describing the day he won gold in the 800 metres at the Los Angeles Olympics: Had lunch of boiled fish, dry toast and a cup of tea. Then I had a cigarette and chatted over technical details with teammates. World record too.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Just the other day I heard that a second cousin had been in a coma for several weeks and her family and doctors were preparing to switch off the life support when one of them noticed a flicker in her eye ... And now though still in hospital she's sitting up and conversing normally with visitors. It makes me shudder to think that the eye flicker might never have been noticed.
A friend of mine had a stroke while septicaemic, and was unconscious (though spontaneously breathing). When I saw him I did everything I could to get a reaction out of him in case he was "locked in". No reaction at all. Six months later he came round and could hold a pretty normal conversation, though paraplegic. So it does happen.
There's a remarkable book "The Butterfly and the Diving Bell" written by a former editor of French Vogue who could only move one eye. It's surprisingly positive and life affirming. He lived some years like that, and seemed to have quality of life.
It’s an amazing story. I personally am in a place where if I decline I will happily take a massive heroin overdose - I’ve always been tempted by heroin so nothing to lose and all that. I have had an amazing life and would rather be “that person” than degrading in front of loved ones and friends.
Where has this huge focus by politicians on assisted dying come from? It used to be a really fringe issue behind literally everything.
Because the UK - and other ageing societes- can no longer afford universal healthcare as the Boomers all go gaga
It is that simple. Kill off the demented
And maybe they are right, in fact, they probably ARE right
I hope there's more to it than just that.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that people should be able to take control of the end of their lives in specific and controlled ways. Dignity is important, as is not prolonging suffering where necessary.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Just the other day I heard that a second cousin had been in a coma for several weeks and her family and doctors were preparing to switch off the life support when one of them noticed a flicker in her eye ... And now though still in hospital she's sitting up and conversing normally with visitors. It makes me shudder to think that the eye flicker might never have been noticed.
Sadly, on the other hand, there are people kept alive for years just because someone saw a flicker...
That's certainly true too.
Our ward sister aged 30 something went into a coma following a seizure, but there was never a flicker of response from her to suggest her mind was still alive. She was 15 or so years in the brain injury ward before her body died too.
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
The Crown Prosecution Service yesterday effectively ruled out the prosecution of relatives who assist the terminally ill to commit suicide after announcing it would take no action against the family of rugby player Daniel James, despite having sufficient evidence to do so.
In his first decision as director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC stated he would not prosecute the parents and a family friend of the 23-year-old, who was paralysed in a training ground accident, for assisting his death.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Just the other day I heard that a second cousin had been in a coma for several weeks and her family and doctors were preparing to switch off the life support when one of them noticed a flicker in her eye ... And now though still in hospital she's sitting up and conversing normally with visitors. It makes me shudder to think that the eye flicker might never have been noticed.
A friend of mine had a stroke while septicaemic, and was unconscious (though spontaneously breathing). When I saw him I did everything I could to get a reaction out of him in case he was "locked in". No reaction at all. Six months later he came round and could hold a pretty normal conversation, though paraplegic. So it does happen.
There's a remarkable book "The Butterfly and the Diving Bell" written by a former editor of French Vogue who could only move one eye. It's surprisingly positive and life affirming. He lived some years like that, and seemed to have quality of life.
It’s an amazing story. I personally am in a place where if I decline I will happily take a massive heroin overdose - I’ve always been tempted by heroin so nothing to lose and all that. I have had an amazing life and would rather be “that person” than degrading in front of loved ones and friends.
Yes, a lot of people think that, yet when the moment comes they grasp on firmly to life.
It's really hard to judge without being in that situation.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
But at the wealthier end there has been an explosion in second home, BTL and holiday let ownership, leaving fewer homes per person available for younger folk.
Probably bigger still is under occupancy. There's little financial incentive to move to a smaller place. Mrs Foxy and I have 4 bedrooms between us , and have overnight guests a few times a year.
I have never understood why the government doesn't provide much more incentives for nudging people as they get older into two things a) not going directly from working full time to permanently retired, rather making the process a gradual one and b) downsizing to smaller houses / more suitable ones for being older e.g. bungalows.
When we had all the reforms to pension age, they could have also used it as an opportunity to deploy these nudges so that people in their 60s gradually go from full time to part time to retired over 10 years.
That's the way the NHS pension now works. It's possible to take "partial retirement" go part time and collect some pension. I did last year and it really suits. I will gradually shed commitments over the next years until finally fully retired.
It's a model that would work well for others.
I'm planning on doing something similar. I have three pension pots from previous jobs that I plan to take at age 60 and then go part time at work.
Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term. Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
While I hope you are correct, nothing we've done in medicine has made the slightest difference to dementia.
There's a lot of reason to be very hopeful about cancer, where I think immunotherapy is completely changing the game. But pretty much drug on the dementia side -particularly the plaque removing ones that everyone was so excited about- has been a complete bust.
Once the brain stops working, there's little evidence of anything coming along to stop the decline, let alone reverse it.
Just the other day I heard that a second cousin had been in a coma for several weeks and her family and doctors were preparing to switch off the life support when one of them noticed a flicker in her eye ... And now though still in hospital she's sitting up and conversing normally with visitors. It makes me shudder to think that the eye flicker might never have been noticed.
A friend of mine had a stroke while septicaemic, and was unconscious (though spontaneously breathing). When I saw him I did everything I could to get a reaction out of him in case he was "locked in". No reaction at all. Six months later he came round and could hold a pretty normal conversation, though paraplegic. So it does happen.
There's a remarkable book "The Butterfly and the Diving Bell" written by a former editor of French Vogue who could only move one eye. It's surprisingly positive and life affirming. He lived some years like that, and seemed to have quality of life.
It’s an amazing story. I personally am in a place where if I decline I will happily take a massive heroin overdose - I’ve always been tempted by heroin so nothing to lose and all that. I have had an amazing life and would rather be “that person” than degrading in front of loved ones and friends.
Yes, a lot of people think that, yet when the moment comes they grasp on firmly to life.
It's really hard to judge without being in that situation.
I saw my father’s decline and never want to go from what he was, and what I am, to his last months. I would definitely go out on my own terms. Will be too useless at that stage to go death and glory in Ukraine* and go out with a bang but don’t want to be a burden - I won’t have a wife and children etc so am in a good position to leave the family in an organised way. They would be ok with that too as I have never been conventional.
* maybe I can do a zimmer frame suicide assault and go out blazing but unlikely.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
Something I am interested to know is how much brain drain has the UK been suffering over the past 5-10 years. The number of people leaving is very high. Who are these people? Yes we hear a lot about millionaire business people leaving to UAE, but who are the rest? Just oldies going to Spain, or it is younger skilled individuals.
The media never seen that interested to investigate who these people are beyond the odd vox pop article about doctors moving to Australia, or some people being digital nomads etc.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
Something I am interested to know is how much brain drain has the UK been suffering over the past 5-10 years. The number of people leaving is very high. Who are these people? Yes we hear a lot about millionaire business people leaving to UAE, but who are the rest? Just oldies going to Spain, or it is younger skilled individuals.
The media never seen that interested to investigate who these people are beyond the odd vox pop article about doctors moving to Australia, or some people being digital nomads etc.
Yes, but we have to remember the phenomenon of regression to the mean, so the nations brains are not drained. They are replaced. Similarly those emigrated brains tend to regress to the mean over the generations too.
You don't have to. Every LD candidate is interviewed, even if paper. Now some of those will be superficial and a lot of stuff will fall through the cracks so you still get duffers or paper candidates who are assured they won't get elected and do, but you should pick up whether they work for the council or not or what they do for a job or a quick look at their social media stuff in a 15 - 30 min chat with a couple of local committee members.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
“Asylum hotel companies vow to uphold their contracts” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco must pay back any profits of more than 5%.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
You don't have to. Every LD candidate is interviewed, even if paper. Now some of those will be superficial and a lot of stuff will fall through the cracks so you still get duffers or paper candidates who are assured they won't get elected and do, but you should pick up whether they work for the council or not or what they do for a job or a quick look at their social media stuff in a 15 - 30 min chat with a couple of local committee members.
No checks when I stood as a Labour (paper) candidate. Party was grateful to get a name on the ballot.
It is a bit more robust here in Bradford Council area, however.
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
“Asylum hotel companies vow to uphold their contracts” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco must pay back any profits of more than 5%.
Yes the reporting is slanted to make it sound like they did something wrong. My point was what a strange contract. Here is money to provide a service, but qe will audit you in the future and if you made more than 5% you must refund it.
I can't even imagine having such a discussion with my clients. I tell them the price, they can agree or negotiate until we agree and how much profit i make is none of their business.
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
“Asylum hotel companies vow to uphold their contracts” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco must pay back any profits of more than 5%.
Yes the reporting is slanted to make it sound like they did something wrong. My point was what a strange contract. Here is money to provide a service, but qe will audit you in the future and if you made more than 5% you must refund it.
They were probably given considerable latitude to define how they calculate their profit vs running costs.
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
I tend to agree. Either the Govt negotiated a rubbish deal or the company provided a shoddy service, but if the latter presumably the company would be in breach of contract, unless of course the Govt negotiated a deal allowing the company to provide a rubbish service and to cream to excess profits.
Either way it is down to the Govt. The Govt can't rely on the companies it deals with to be moral, much as we would like them to be. Guess they won't, or shouldn't, get another contract, but we have seen before that isn't true.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
Most of the SA whites with the brains, entrepreneurship, degrees and the contacts left a while ago. It’s funny how people who have ability leave if you tell them they aren’t welcome.
But… SA have a whole couple of generations of black South Africans who are getting opportunities who are doing well - and they are every bit as intelligent and educated as most of the world. Everything changes.
There became a vacuum in one of the potentially best countries in the world and it will be filled. Long game
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
It’s in the contract they signed.
It’s often a feature of government contracts in the US, as well. Lookup FAR… and the comedies that result.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
As a general rule it is intelligent people who emigrate, not least because they are ambitious and have the skills to get a visa.
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
It’s in the contract they signed.
It’s often a feature of government contracts in the US, as well. Lookup FAR… and the comedies that result.
Yes i know that was my point. The reporting is slanted like there has been wrong doing, but this is all per the agreement. I just think its a weird agreement.
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
I tend to agree. Either the Govt negotiated a rubbish deal or the company provided a shoddy service, but if the latter presumably the company would be in breach of contract, unless of course the Govt negotiated a deal allowing the company to provide a rubbish service and to cream to excess profits.
Either way it is down to the Govt. The Govt can't rely on the companies it deals with to be moral, much as we would like them to be. Guess they won't, or shouldn't, get another contract, but we have seen before that isn't true.
Headline writer writing for clicks rather than the truth "Vow = contractually obliged"
"Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco must pay back any profits of more than 5%."
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
It’s in the contract they signed.
It’s often a feature of government contracts in the US, as well. Lookup FAR… and the comedies that result.
Yes i know that was my point. The reporting is slanted like there has been wrong doing, but this is all per the agreement. I just think its a weird agreement.
No, you're right. It is weird. Much about it is weird, including the reporting
You don't have to. Every LD candidate is interviewed, even if paper. Now some of those will be superficial and a lot of stuff will fall through the cracks so you still get duffers or paper candidates who are assured they won't get elected and do, but you should pick up whether they work for the council or not or what they do for a job or a quick look at their social media stuff in a 15 - 30 min chat with a couple of local committee members.
No checks when I stood as a Labour (paper) candidate. Party was grateful to get a name on the ballot.
It is a bit more robust here in Bradford Council area, however.
Believe me we are grateful, I would say desperate in some cases, but still minor checks are done on the obvious, even for paper candidates, in my experience.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
The trouble with assisted dying is that medicine is now advancing so rapidly - and will likely accelerate - that it is possible diseases like dementia will be cured entirely in the next few years. Not just slowed. Or even halted. Cured
Shuffling nonna off to the reaper is fine and dandy if she’s miserable and doomed. But what if she could be healed again within a year?
You wont be eligible for assisted death purely because of dementia.
The overreaction seems crazy to me. That Island of Strangers quote is being reacted to like Starmer is promising Trump style deportations to a Super Max prison in Latin America rather than basically a return to pre-Brexit / Boris rules.
The overreaction seems crazy to me. That Island of Strangers quote is being reacted to like Starmer is promising Trump style deportations to a Super Max prison in Latin America rather than basically a return to pre-Brexit / Boris rules.
Interesting how the BBC is so keen to investigate Reform councillors. Do they do this for other parties with such enthusiasm?
Probably not, but there is actually some justification for taking a different approach - Reform has been keen to claim its candidates are different (despite, as far as I can see, largely being made up of the same normal people other parties put up, and saying similar things about local issues), and as a new party which even just last year did not contest local elections with much enthusiasm, has talked about professionalising its operations and improving its vetting. Thus inviting that to be tested.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
The overreaction seems crazy to me. That Island of Strangers quote is being reacted to like Starmer is promising Trump style deportations to a Super Max prison in Latin America rather than basically a return to pre-Brexit / Boris rules.
Somewhat a return to pre-Brexit/Boris rules. EU care workers did not, of course, need visas. And they had access to public funds - another difference).
The overreaction seems crazy to me. That Island of Strangers quote is being reacted to like Starmer is promising Trump style deportations to a Super Max prison in Latin America rather than basically a return to pre-Brexit / Boris rules.
This often happens where people really overreact to some piece of terminology. Sometimes it works, but other times it can make you look silly and distract from the subject matter, since if you immediately jump to overwrought complaints and comparisons why should people listen?
Remember Cameron talking about migrants 'swarming'? Approve of the description or not it did not merit the attack of vapours it produced, and just looks performative.
The overreaction seems crazy to me. That Island of Strangers quote is being reacted to like Starmer is promising Trump style deportations to a Super Max prison in Latin America rather than basically a return to pre-Brexit / Boris rules.
The Tories who spent two decades being terrified of the same kind of reaction should look at this and realise that they should never have allowed themselves to be so cowed. Progressivism is the politics of hysteria.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
"Kazakhstan greatest country in world All other countries are run by little girls"
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
The overreaction seems crazy to me. That Island of Strangers quote is being reacted to like Starmer is promising Trump style deportations to a Super Max prison in Latin America rather than basically a return to pre-Brexit / Boris rules.
The Tories who spent two decades being terrified of the same kind of reaction should look at this and realise that they should never have allowed themselves to be so cowed. Progressivism is the politics of hysteria.
The island of strangers quote, and I don’t know if I’m alone in this, just keeps making me think of The Tempest.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Could well be, though on the day Trump goes to Saudia Arabia it is a tougher sell.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
Why? It isn't rocket science. SA whites moved from a very privileged existence to black majority rules. On top of that there was probably a lot of resentment by the blacks and little experience of Govt. The transition of Govt in most of African countries from colonial rule has not been a roaring success. I know in SA case it wasn't from colonial rule, but it was very similar.
Frankly I am surprised it has gone as well as it has. It could have been a lot worse. Most countries fell into a bloody civil war.
If you were an Afrikaner farmer would you have not got out early.
You really do have an odd opinion of liberals. There is a distinction between ideals and reality.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
A question may be whether things get more fucked up over time - if the initial optimism does not deliver what many expected or hoped for, and thus lead to the opposite result, a decline, as more extreme politics emerges.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Even Saudi Arabia? Brunei?
Constitutional monarchies then. Though neither Saudi nor Brunei have suffered the fate of Syria, Iraq or Libya to be fair.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Yes, they absolutely do
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
A question may be whether things get more fucked up over time - if the initial optimism does not deliver what many expected or hoped for, and thus lead to the opposite result, a decline, as more extreme politics emerges.
Personal experience is we lost many of the brightest and best Europeans straight after the Brexit vote. They could see our own Julius Malemas lining up.
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
Yes, it isn't believable in the slightest. Rich celebrities are just like normal people, they get fed stuff by social media algorithms, post and comment on them without thought, getting a rush from their actions, and 'miss' obvious red flags.
Corbyn's case was actually slightly different in that example you give - he knew it would not be believed he could not see the symbolism was offensive (though his supporters made that argument, including some surprising voices on here), he instead argued he hadn't noticed the accompanying image at all ("I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." were his words).
He was a liar, in other words. A man of gentle manners, but not as cuddly as people think he is. He cannot both be an authority on these subjects and conveniently ignorant of the darker side.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco is pretty poor you know: GDP per capita is less than $4,000, against nearly $8,000 in Botswana. On a PPP basis, Botswana is pretty middle income now: it's about $20k.
Now, sure, is this largely predicated on tourism and a bit of mining? Sure. But they have gone from being massively poorer than South Africans, to being a lot richer.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Yes, they absolutely do
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
Evil dictators of the last century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mobuto, Amin, Papa Doc, Saddam, 2 Assads, Gaddafi, Pinochet, Milosevic, Burmese Junta, Hoxha, Caeucescu, Trump, Putin, Erdogan. All republics.
Possible exception the Kims (essentially an absolute monarchy) and the house of Saud.
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
I tend to agree. Either the Govt negotiated a rubbish deal or the company provided a shoddy service, but if the latter presumably the company would be in breach of contract, unless of course the Govt negotiated a deal allowing the company to provide a rubbish service and to cream to excess profits.
Either way it is down to the Govt. The Govt can't rely on the companies it deals with to be moral, much as we would like them to be. Guess they won't, or shouldn't, get another contract, but we have seen before that isn't true.
It’s just a fixed margin management outsourcing contract. Pretty standard.
They estimate their costs, get paid a lump sum including 5% mark up and then there is a reconcilliation after the financial year end with a true up mechanism
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Yes, they absolutely do
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
See also Spain. Franco had many disadvantages (obs) but he had enough smarts to see he was succeeded by a monarchy. As the Soviet/Russia handover proved, you can't go straight to a full liberal democratic Republic overnight, you have to go thru intermediate stages to build up the institutions, and a monarchy is pretty good for that.
The overreaction seems crazy to me. That Island of Strangers quote is being reacted to like Starmer is promising Trump style deportations to a Super Max prison in Latin America rather than basically a return to pre-Brexit / Boris rules.
The Tories who spent two decades being terrified of the same kind of reaction should look at this and realise that they should never have allowed themselves to be so cowed. Progressivism is the politics of hysteria.
I don't understand how politicians haven't realised yet that social media (and the media) are how the majority will feel about things. Just treat people like adults and tell them the truth. Part of the negative reaction over WFA was not just the removal against olides but the utter horseshit of the whole economy will collapse if we don't do this when it is literally peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
The overreaction seems crazy to me. That Island of Strangers quote is being reacted to like Starmer is promising Trump style deportations to a Super Max prison in Latin America rather than basically a return to pre-Brexit / Boris rules.
Convenient for Sir Keir that he only had this moment of clarity after the man he hates more than any other allowed too much immigration in one year.
It’s just dawned on me that if you average out the three years Boris was in charge, net migration was only about 300k pa, so why would the country become an ‘Island of Strangers’ now anymore than at any other time in the previous decade?
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Yes, they absolutely do
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
Evil dictators of the last century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mobuto, Amin, Papa Doc, Saddam, 2 Assads, Gaddafi, Pinochet, Milosevic, Burmese Junta, Hoxha, Caeucescu, Trump, Putin, Erdogan. All republics.
Possible exception the Kims (essentially an absolute monarchy) and the house of Saud.
Most monarchs have some restrictions, even if informal ones. They are a lot better when the formal restrictions are put in.
Of course, some of the worst republics are made into de facto monarchies if the rulers can manage it.
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
Yes, it isn't believable in the slightest. Rich celebrities are just like normal people, they get fed stuff by social media algorithms, post and comment on them without thought, getting a rush from their actions, and 'miss' obvious red flags.
Corbyn's case was actually slightly different in that example you give - he knew it would not be believed he could not see the symbolism was offensive (though his supporters made that argument, including some surprising voices on here), he instead argued he hadn't noticed the accompanying image at all ("I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." were his words).
He was a liar, in other words. A man of gentle manners, but not as cuddly as people think he is. He cannot both be an authority on these subjects and conveniently ignorant of the darker side.
I saw Lineker's interview with Amol Rajan and while he came across as a bit dim, he also seemed sincere. And there are many many reasons to despise what Israel is doing in Gaza
But reposting a post about Zionism with a rat emoji? REALLY? Jud Suss 2.0?
If Lineker claims the right to use social media as he wishes, about contentious issues, and he forcefully does this, then he must also be closely judged by what he does put on social media, because he is not a random celebrity liking the odd Facebook post. Social media is where Lineker exists, on his own admission
And that was a grave social media error - at best - and the BBC should sever any links with him
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
You really do have an odd opinion of liberals. There is a distinction between ideals and reality.
Not for many many people, left and right, conservative and liberal.
Serious question, do people outside political nerd circle even know who Enoch Powell was?
Yesterday I watched an episode of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire from a couple of years ago where a young contestant with a university degree (a) didn't know that Keith Chegwin wasn't a member of the Rolling Stones, and (b) hadn't heard of the phrase "spend a penny". But after that he went on to win £125,000.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Yes, they absolutely do
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
See also Spain. Franco had many disadvantages (obs) but he had enough smarts to see he was succeeded by a monarchy. As the Soviet/Russia handover proved, you can't go straight to a full liberal democratic Republic overnight, you have to go thru intermediate stages to build up the institutions, and a monarchy is pretty good for that.
Errr:
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have all done a pretty good job of going straight to full liberal democracies.
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
Yes, it isn't believable in the slightest. Rich celebrities are just like normal people, they get fed stuff by social media algorithms, post and comment on them without thought, getting a rush from their actions, and 'miss' obvious red flags.
Corbyn's case was actually slightly different in that example you give - he knew it would not be believed he could not see the symbolism was offensive (though his supporters made that argument, including some surprising voices on here), he instead argued he hadn't noticed the accompanying image at all ("I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." were his words).
He was a liar, in other words. A man of gentle manners, but not as cuddly as people think he is. He cannot both be an authority on these subjects and conveniently ignorant of the darker side.
I saw Lineker's interview with Amol Rajan and while he came across as a bit dim, he also seemed sincere. And there are many many reasons to despise what Israel is doing in Gaza
But reposting a post about Zionism with a rat emoji? REALLY? Jud Suss 2.0?
If Lineker claims the right to use social media as he wishes, about contentious issues, and he forcefully does this, then he must also be closely judged by what he does put on social media, because he is not a random celebrity liking the odd Facebook post. Social media is where Lineker exists, on his own admission
And that was a grave social media error - at best - and the BBC should sever any links with him
Whilst you do have a point, remind me again why your post history is confidential?
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco is pretty poor you know: GDP per capita is less than $4,000, against nearly $8,000 in Botswana. On a PPP basis, Botswana is pretty middle income now: it's about $20k.
Now, sure, is this largely predicated on tourism and a bit of mining? Sure. But they have gone from being massively poorer than South Africans, to being a lot richer.
Botswana is doing well, but I was comparing like with like: you cannot seriously compare sub-Saharan Africa with MENA
Like with like for Morocco is: Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria...
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Yes, they absolutely do
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
See also Spain. Franco had many disadvantages (obs) but he had enough smarts to see he was succeeded by a monarchy. As the Soviet/Russia handover proved, you can't go straight to a full liberal democratic Republic overnight, you have to go thru intermediate stages to build up the institutions, and a monarchy is pretty good for that.
Errr:
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have all done a pretty good job of going straight to full liberal democracies.
Fair point. But perhaps a monarchy would have done just as well and perhaps better?
Serious question, do people outside political nerd circle even know who Enoch Powell was?
Enoch? Actually another one who was quite keen at one point on bringing in non-white immigrants to do work the natives weren't that keen on.
He thought whites inferior:
"Powell defended his speech on 4 May through an interview for the Birmingham Post: "What I would take 'racialist' to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief. So the answer to the question of whether I am a racialist is 'no'—unless, perhaps, it is to be a racialist in reverse. I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans. Perhaps that is over-correcting."
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Yes, they absolutely do
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
See also Spain. Franco had many disadvantages (obs) but he had enough smarts to see he was succeeded by a monarchy. As the Soviet/Russia handover proved, you can't go straight to a full liberal democratic Republic overnight, you have to go thru intermediate stages to build up the institutions, and a monarchy is pretty good for that.
Errr:
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have all done a pretty good job of going straight to full liberal democracies.
Fair point. But perhaps a monarchy would have done just as well and perhaps better?
Where to get the monarchs from though? There are probably some old German princes hanging about somewhere, but not all that many - our Royal Family need to spread some roots across the commonwealth realms so they can have their own royal lines if they want to transition away from the UK without going full republic.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco did take Western Sahara within its boundaries - and secured it with the world's biggest minefield.
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
Yes, it isn't believable in the slightest. Rich celebrities are just like normal people, they get fed stuff by social media algorithms, post and comment on them without thought, getting a rush from their actions, and 'miss' obvious red flags.
Corbyn's case was actually slightly different in that example you give - he knew it would not be believed he could not see the symbolism was offensive (though his supporters made that argument, including some surprising voices on here), he instead argued he hadn't noticed the accompanying image at all ("I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." were his words).
He was a liar, in other words. A man of gentle manners, but not as cuddly as people think he is. He cannot both be an authority on these subjects and conveniently ignorant of the darker side.
I saw Lineker's interview with Amol Rajan and while he came across as a bit dim, he also seemed sincere. And there are many many reasons to despise what Israel is doing in Gaza
But reposting a post about Zionism with a rat emoji? REALLY? Jud Suss 2.0?
If Lineker claims the right to use social media as he wishes, about contentious issues, and he forcefully does this, then he must also be closely judged by what he does put on social media, because he is not a random celebrity liking the odd Facebook post. Social media is where Lineker exists, on his own admission
And that was a grave social media error - at best - and the BBC should sever any links with him
Whilst you do have a point, remind me again why your post history is confidential?
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco did take Western Sahara within its boundaries - and secured it with the world's biggest minefield.
There's a part of me that says "how do you do a minefield in a desert"?
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco did take Western Sahara within its boundaries - and secured it with the world's biggest minefield.
"From the Desert to the Sea, Western Sahara will be free!"
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco: monarchy. Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Yes, they absolutely do
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
See also Spain. Franco had many disadvantages (obs) but he had enough smarts to see he was succeeded by a monarchy. As the Soviet/Russia handover proved, you can't go straight to a full liberal democratic Republic overnight, you have to go thru intermediate stages to build up the institutions, and a monarchy is pretty good for that.
Errr:
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have all done a pretty good job of going straight to full liberal democracies.
Fair point. But perhaps a monarchy would have done just as well and perhaps better?
Where to get the monarchs from though? There are probably some old German princes hanging about somewhere, but not all that many - our Royal Family need to spread some roots across the commonwealth realms so they can have their own royal lines if they want to transition away from the UK without going full republic.
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
Yes, it isn't believable in the slightest. Rich celebrities are just like normal people, they get fed stuff by social media algorithms, post and comment on them without thought, getting a rush from their actions, and 'miss' obvious red flags.
Corbyn's case was actually slightly different in that example you give - he knew it would not be believed he could not see the symbolism was offensive (though his supporters made that argument, including some surprising voices on here), he instead argued he hadn't noticed the accompanying image at all ("I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." were his words).
He was a liar, in other words. A man of gentle manners, but not as cuddly as people think he is. He cannot both be an authority on these subjects and conveniently ignorant of the darker side.
I saw Lineker's interview with Amol Rajan and while he came across as a bit dim, he also seemed sincere. And there are many many reasons to despise what Israel is doing in Gaza
But reposting a post about Zionism with a rat emoji? REALLY? Jud Suss 2.0?
If Lineker claims the right to use social media as he wishes, about contentious issues, and he forcefully does this, then he must also be closely judged by what he does put on social media, because he is not a random celebrity liking the odd Facebook post. Social media is where Lineker exists, on his own admission
And that was a grave social media error - at best - and the BBC should sever any links with him
My test has long been when it comes to stuff like posting crap on social media. Everybody can make a mistake, they can post an offensive tweet and the first time you get a pass from me, particularly if you made such a tweet 10 years ago when you were 15.
Lineker like some other middle aged celebs lives and breath social media. They are on it round the clock. And he keeps doing this. Remember he posted fake news about a poor innocent footballer who was killed, who turned out was a well known terrorist. But he just instantly was retweet, like, follow, share.....it keeps happening.
The only time he wasn't instantly reweet, like, follow, share, was weirdly went he went missing for 4-5 days around the time of the October 7th massacre. Only months later did he then try the yes of course I was disgusted by this incident....
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
I'm interpreting this as you saying white South Africans have a lower IQ than their compatriots. Or am I wrong?
I would suggest that the ones who are still there are probably stupider than the ones who left two decades ago.
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
So you're saying the brightest South Africans are the whites who saw the inevitable chaotic and miserable end of black majority rule and got out early? Or am I somehow misinterpreting?
I am saying the brighter whites left two decades ago, and it is the stupid whites left.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
The clear implication is that South Africa was bound to fail under black majority rule so the smart white people left ASAFP
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
If you have one group of people oppressed by another, who then take over, then yes I think it's highly likely things will get fucked up. You see this with national liberation movements across South America too.
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
Fair enough
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Morocco is pretty poor you know: GDP per capita is less than $4,000, against nearly $8,000 in Botswana. On a PPP basis, Botswana is pretty middle income now: it's about $20k.
Now, sure, is this largely predicated on tourism and a bit of mining? Sure. But they have gone from being massively poorer than South Africans, to being a lot richer.
Are there any countries in Africa safer than Morocco? Some people say Botswana.
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
Sorry, even if someone didn't know that a rat was such a symbol, they should have thought twice about using it, in the circumstances.
Translation: When I posted an image of a rat I had no idea I was posting an image of a rat. I saw a post which seemed to support my view of dirty stinking rat-like Jews but I had no idea the image of a rat was meant to imply Jews are dirty and rat- like."
Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
Yes, it isn't believable in the slightest. Rich celebrities are just like normal people, they get fed stuff by social media algorithms, post and comment on them without thought, getting a rush from their actions, and 'miss' obvious red flags.
Corbyn's case was actually slightly different in that example you give - he knew it would not be believed he could not see the symbolism was offensive (though his supporters made that argument, including some surprising voices on here), he instead argued he hadn't noticed the accompanying image at all ("I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." were his words).
He was a liar, in other words. A man of gentle manners, but not as cuddly as people think he is. He cannot both be an authority on these subjects and conveniently ignorant of the darker side.
I saw Lineker's interview with Amol Rajan and while he came across as a bit dim, he also seemed sincere. And there are many many reasons to despise what Israel is doing in Gaza
But reposting a post about Zionism with a rat emoji? REALLY? Jud Suss 2.0?
If Lineker claims the right to use social media as he wishes, about contentious issues, and he forcefully does this, then he must also be closely judged by what he does put on social media, because he is not a random celebrity liking the odd Facebook post. Social media is where Lineker exists, on his own admission
And that was a grave social media error - at best - and the BBC should sever any links with him
Whilst you do have a point, remind me again why your post history is confidential?
Hear hear. Something I feel strongly about. Nobody's post history here should be secret and I have campaigned before this option should be removed. If you post it, own it, or withdraw it.
Comments
BBC News - Sheffield's youngest councillor has been suspended - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3v5l1kl7xzo
There's a remarkable book "The Butterfly and the Diving Bell" written by a former editor of French Vogue who could only move one eye. It's surprisingly positive and life affirming. He lived some years like that, and seemed to have quality of life.
A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.
Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39x0133e2wo
I think Gary might be wise to put the phone down for a bit....its a weird given his interest in these issues how blind he is to such tropes, like Jezza not understanding the problematic mural. What do you mean, bankers, hooked noses, puppets etc, they are antisemitic tropes, i never knew....
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that people should be able to take control of the end of their lives in specific and controlled ways. Dignity is important, as is not prolonging suffering where necessary.
Our ward sister aged 30 something went into a coma following a seizure, but there was never a flicker of response from her to suggest her mind was still alive. She was 15 or so years in the brain injury ward before her body died too.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1922362183792357556?s=61
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-strange-history-of-keir-starmer-and-assisted-suicide/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/exclusive-denmark-and-italy-seek-support-to-rein-in-european-human-rights-court/
Indeed, he or one of his predecessors should have written it years ago.
It's really hard to judge without being in that situation.
This is why I earn the big bucks
My wife is from South Africa, almost her university entire graduating class left the country. Her best friend from High School and her husband, very successful entreupreners, have been here in LA for a decade.
The ones who are left behind are not the brightest, because even the moderately not dim saw the direction of travel more than a decade ago.
(Interestingly, we're now hiring very bright black South Africans who are graduating from prestiguous South African universities and see better opportunities abroad.)
Counting down the weeks...
* maybe I can do a zimmer frame suicide assault and go out blazing but unlikely.
The media never seen that interested to investigate who these people are beyond the odd vox pop article about doctors moving to Australia, or some people being digital nomads etc.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2jw9jg99jo
What a strange agreement. Why should it be on a company to cap its own profits for providing a service. Surely it is on the government to agree a deal they think is the right amount at the time.
Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco must pay back any profits of more than 5%.
And now it is the bright africans who are leaving.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
It is a bit more robust here in Bradford Council area, however.
I can't even imagine having such a discussion with my clients. I tell them the price, they can agree or negotiate until we agree and how much profit i make is none of their business.
Either way it is down to the Govt. The Govt can't rely on the companies it deals with to be moral, much as we would like them to be. Guess they won't, or shouldn't, get another contract, but we have seen before that isn't true.
This isn't a gotcha. I'm just intrigued that you are being so candid with your opinion. Most effete LA liberals hedge around the issue, indeed most people anywhere do so
Perhaps it is another symptom of the Vibeshift
But… SA have a whole couple of generations of black South Africans who are getting opportunities who are doing well - and they are every bit as intelligent and educated as most of the world. Everything changes.
There became a vacuum in one of the potentially best countries in the world and it will be filled. Long game
It’s often a feature of government contracts in the US, as well. Lookup FAR… and the comedies that result.
Take your self as an example. 😀
"Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco must pay back any profits of more than 5%."
South Africa has fallen well behind -say- Botswana, and that has democratic black african rule. But it also had the advantage that it didn't have the bulk of the country's wealth being held by a few people who looked different from most of the population.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/13/the-daily-t-davey-starmer-echoing-enoch-powell-immigration/
The interesting countries are the exceptions
Chile and Uruguay stand out in LatAm
In MENA Morocco seems to have done best in delivering relative freedom, increasing prosperity, gender equality (within reason), while avoiding Islamism or hideous despotism
Kazakhstan has done comparatively very well, weirdly (having just been there).
Remember Cameron talking about migrants 'swarming'? Approve of the description or not it did not merit the attack of vapours it produced, and just looks performative.
Heard in the wild today: “after Keir’s rivers of blood speech yesterday…”.
All other countries are run by little girls"
Monarchies do better on the balancing freedom and responsibility thing, as a rule.
Be afear’d.
Frankly I am surprised it has gone as well as it has. It could have been a lot worse. Most countries fell into a bloody civil war.
If you were an Afrikaner farmer would you have not got out early.
You really do have an odd opinion of liberals. There is a distinction between ideals and reality.
If I could advise any young nation finding its first way in the world (and, frankly, I'd be good at this) I would say: Be a monarchy, preferably an ancient monarchy. It really really helps. It provides stablity, it provides identity, it is a source of reassurance, pageantry, pride, accrued wisdom
We would be insane to get rid of ours, for all its flaws, and - thankfully - there is little chance of our doing so. Indeed I suspect the tendency is now TOWARDS monarchy in much of the world. Australia, Canada and NZ are all less likely to go republican than they were ten years ago, for instance
Corbyn's case was actually slightly different in that example you give - he knew it would not be believed he could not see the symbolism was offensive (though his supporters made that argument, including some surprising voices on here), he instead argued he hadn't noticed the accompanying image at all ("I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." were his words).
He was a liar, in other words. A man of gentle manners, but not as cuddly as people think he is. He cannot both be an authority on these subjects and conveniently ignorant of the darker side.
Now, sure, is this largely predicated on tourism and a bit of mining? Sure. But they have gone from being massively poorer than South Africans, to being a lot richer.
Possible exception the Kims (essentially an absolute monarchy) and the house of Saud.
They estimate their costs, get paid a lump sum including 5% mark up and then there is a reconcilliation after the financial year end with a true up mechanism
It’s just dawned on me that if you average out the three years Boris was in charge, net migration was only about 300k pa, so why would the country become an ‘Island of Strangers’ now anymore than at any other time in the previous decade?
Of course, some of the worst republics are made into de facto monarchies if the rulers can manage it.
But reposting a post about Zionism with a rat emoji? REALLY? Jud Suss 2.0?
If Lineker claims the right to use social media as he wishes, about contentious issues, and he forcefully does this, then he must also be closely judged by what he does put on social media, because he is not a random celebrity liking the odd Facebook post. Social media is where Lineker exists, on his own admission
And that was a grave social media error - at best - and the BBC should sever any links with him
12 mins on this link on ITV player.
https://www.itv.com/watch/who-wants-to-be-a-millionaire/33753/1a7907a0153
https://millionaire.fandom.com/wiki/Conor_Kim
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have all done a pretty good job of going straight to full liberal democracies.
Like with like for Morocco is: Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria...
Morocco is doing comparatively well
"Powell defended his speech on 4 May through an interview for the Birmingham Post: "What I would take 'racialist' to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief. So the answer to the question of whether I am a racialist is 'no'—unless, perhaps, it is to be a racialist in reverse. I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans. Perhaps that is over-correcting."
Lineker like some other middle aged celebs lives and breath social media. They are on it round the clock. And he keeps doing this. Remember he posted fake news about a poor innocent footballer who was killed, who turned out was a well known terrorist. But he just instantly was retweet, like, follow, share.....it keeps happening.
The only time he wasn't instantly reweet, like, follow, share, was weirdly went he went missing for 4-5 days around the time of the October 7th massacre. Only months later did he then try the yes of course I was disgusted by this incident....
A sad end to the day.
1. Is too stupid to be posting on social media
and
2. Too dangerously dumb to be associated with the BBC if he's going to continue posting
The alternative is
3. He's lying. Which again means the BBC should cut ties with him
I don't see any alternative
Stephen Pollard expresses it better than me.
"Stephen Pollard
@stephenpollard
Translation:
When I posted an image of a rat I had no idea I was posting an image of a rat.
I saw a post which seemed to support my view of dirty stinking rat-like Jews but I had no idea the image of a rat was meant to imply Jews are dirty and rat- like."
https://x.com/stephenpollard/status/1922359604098261475