MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 92, 93, 94 ... 299, 300, 301  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
Don't you think the attempted murder of Julia Skripal strengthens the case against the Russian state/FSB? Being a traitor (as Sergei is) undoubtedly carries the risk of assassination. So risking the assassination of your daughter must be a more effective deterrent to anyone considering this career path.

That's a fair and logical point. Again though, my main point is, without evidence we can't know. I simply have no way of knowing who to believe at present.

The Iraqi soldiers throwing babies from their incubators was equally shocking. We went to war because of it ..then found out it didn't happen.

I'm not stating that Putin didn't carry out this assassination. I'm just asking for evidence that he did.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Again, this is purely just speculation ... but it is my speculation.

I apologise.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think the WhatsApp ideas are within the realm of fair-minded consideration.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
We went to war because of it ..then found out it didn't happen.


Oh tosh!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ya wanna theory? OK how about this? 1) The US now has a surplus of natural fracked gas and is a net exporter of that. It could easily export a lot more if there were buyers in (e.g.) Europe

This is not quite true. As I understand it, US fracked gas is not as cheap to produce as, for example, liquefied gas from the Middle East. But in any case it is not easy to understand why US producers would export gas when they have not yet satisfied their home market.

2) There would be buyers in Europe except that they are locked into long-term contracts with Russian natural gas suppliers.

This is not quite true. There are huge numbers of suppliers who aren’t. It's tough on Centrica but they'll just lose money and/or market share if your thesis is correct.

3) Unusually cold winter weather patterns (don't call it climate change) is increasing the demand for the gas and forcing up the wholesale price.

This is not quite true. Demand for gas is increasing for all kinds of reasons but so is supply from all kinds of places. As you know, AE forbids predictions on the basis of the recent past. Overall energy demand has been going down in all advanced countries in 'the recent past'.

4) A Really Big Excuse would be needed to unilaterally break the contract and switch to US sources, or force a "national emergency" to start fracking big-time in the UK.

This is not quite true. It is becoming increasingly clear that fracking can never be ‘big time in the UK', in the sense of being cheaper than big time fracking in the USA and elsewhere. It is open to the government, indeed is the stated policy of the government, that British fracking should be encouraged for reasons of ‘security of supply’.

5) Russia having a hissy-fit and turning off the gas supply would be the perfect excuse. Except, Russia hasn't had a hissy fit (yet).

This is not quite true. Russia has turned off the gas on several occasions when it has had a hissy fit. This is always a problem when dealing commercially with Russia and is (I presume) factored into the price of long-term contracts.

To go along with the wood chip for the Drax wood-fired power station. More to come if the Russians turn off the natural gas pipeline?

The Drax scandal at least provides good evidence that ‘security of supply’ is not something we have to worry about very much. We may have to pay more if the cheapest supplier happens not to be supplying but that's about it. Though it is another scandal that the government has been whittling down our strategic reserve infrastructure that covers the temporary dislocation of (for example) Russia having a hissy fit..
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Promoting this app so it becomes used almost ubiquitously

This is the bit I never get. I am an expert on both governments and security services but I have never heard of either a government or a security service that is remotely capable of doing this. Unless you're China of course and can do it quite openly.

Then a few years down the line. Let's say this plan isn't working entirely as people are still using other genuinely independent apps that are genuinely secured against spying

Quite. But how would anyone (except conspiracy theorists) know which is which?

Then you can potentially use your app to create some drama or scandal that can create the necessary uproar and outrage to get the unwitting public and politicians to support some type of across-the-board ban or legislation.

We've had dozens of such dramas from day one. They can't all be government/security service inspired, can they?

This is why controlled opposition works so well.

Isn't it the uncontrolled opposition that governments/security services have to worry about? If they want to watch football discussions on WhatsApp in real time nobody's going to mind that much (unless you're either a conspiracy theorist or a taxpayer). But real conspirators (eg ISIS, Tory MP's etc) are surely going to use slightly more conspiratorial methods.

Then I found out it was actually owned by Facebook and that they'd paid $19 billion for the company. So the business model seemed a little odd to me.

Now you are saying Zuckerberg is part of the Deep State. Good point.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
But how would anyone (except conspiracy theorists) know which is which?

They wouldn't. This goes back to your earlier point..
I have never heard of either a government or a security service that is remotely capable of doing this. Unless you're China

Their attempts at dominating the market will probably have limited success due to the fact that there are alternative apps that people choose instead. Not because of any suspicions. Just for the normal reasons. They may just like other apps better, etc.

Also, it's difficult to pinpoint who the they that are doing this are, but government is probably a poor description as it suggests our politicians. Really it's more a case of international wealth operating through an intelligence network that largely transcends our national borders. Oligarchs International let's say. These people are very good at doing business. Much better than politicians.

We've had dozens of such dramas from day one. They can't all be government/security service inspired, can they?

That's definitely not what I'm saying. I just suggested that this one might be. Though it's reasonable to think that more than one could be. Or that there could be some type of ongoing campaign with the same controlled opposition groups being used repeatedly.

Also I watched Question Time and This Week on the Beeb last night. On both shows legislation was suggested as a possible response to the Facebook scandal. Portillo stated that the fall in Facebook's share price was probably based on the expectation of legislation.

..But real conspirators (eg ISIS, Tory MP's etc) are surely going to use slightly more conspiratorial methods.

Again, if the controlled opposition is effective they simply wouldn't know. Also a lot of conspirators won't even realise they're doing anything that would be considered conspiratorial. For instance, Tory MP's may just, entirely legally and with good intention, be discussing their plans for the future of the country. However, if these plans don't fit with the bigger picture it might be useful to keep an eye on what they're up to.

If Jacob Rees-Mogg is a genuine English patriot, who believes in free speech (which I hope he is), then they may be having a good snoop around on his phone as we speak. Again, though it's all just speculation.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If Jacob Rees-Mogg is a genuine English patriot, who believes in free speech (which I hope he is)

Just a small point but one which has to be asked of conspiracy theorists. Can you name a British politician who isn't in favour of free speech?
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Can you name a British politician who isn't in favour of free speech?

Yvette Cooper.

I see what you're saying though. All these people will say, and no doubt genuinely believe, that they are in favour of free speech. I guess with Rees-Mogg my hope is that he continues to oppose legislation that curbs free speech.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Also, I've just finally sat down and properly started watching the Channel 4 Cambridge Analytica sting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ&index=1&list=PLXjqQf1xYLQ58kSJHiMy7jDkKUvdRbu1k

The undercover scene in the restaurant is filmed from 5 different camera angles. This doesn't prove it's fake or scripted of course, but it does seem like a hell of a lot of trouble to go to in order to film a meeting in the hope that something incriminating may be said. Especially in a public restaurant. What if someone sits at the table next to you? Or one of the waiters sees you setting up hidden cameras and asks you why you're filming?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Botheration! I'd forgotten about Herr Cooper.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

She was on the BBC flagship politics programme at the weekend peddling her filth. Haven't they heard of Section 18b of the Defence of the Realm Act?
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Haven't they heard of Section 18b of the Defence of the Realm Act?

It's funny you should mention Section 18b as I've literally just finished reading The Nameless War by the British MP Archibald Maule Ramsay. He was held under this act for the duration of WWII. He blames pretty much everything on the Jews. It's quite an interesting read though.

I think what he identifies (i.e. the "International" conspiracy) is a real phenomenon, but his is a pretty crude and racially-fixated interpretation of it. I've mentioned on here before that I don't think Jewish people constitute a separate race. The fact that East European Jews look largely East European, Spanish Jews look largely Spanish, etc illustrates this. In fact, I was watching Zuckerberg's CNN interview. In many ways he could be described as a stereotypical wealthy Jew. However, he has blue eyes and freckles. He could easily pass for one of my own family members. I can't imagine his genes are especially different from mine.

This suggests to me that what we think of as Jewishness is something that emerges from within our culture rather than something that arrives from somewhere foreign. I think the way we view history as being something that happens within nations and between nations stops us from seeing this.

I'll explain my theory below...
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If you have a bunch of lower class people living in a particular area, over time those people will largely remain lower class. However, a few of these people, through their natural intelligence or craft, may rise up the social ladder. These people will likely be drawn to towns and cities, as city life offers more opportunity for employment and business. In the countryside roles are more traditional and fixed. The aristocracy own the land and the peasants work it.

So overtime in cities and towns intelligence accrues towards the top end of civil society, as intelligent people take advantage of the social mobility it offers. This then results in two different types of aristocracy in society. The landed aristocracy and also the city-based aristocracy. Like the landed aristocracy, the city-aristocracy tend to marry amongst themselves. Overtime trade networks and family networks develop between towns and cities.

The landed aristocracy are tied to their land and derive their wealth and status from it. Their power rests largely on tradition and force (the force needed to defend their territory, raise militias, etc.).

The city aristocracy don't have land, they have transferable wealth - money, gold, trade (note that the root of the word jewellery is jew). Their power largely rests on innovation and intelligence. Unlike the landed aristocracy they are not tied to the land, but are in a position to move, and to move their wealth as well. However, they lack the force needed to defend themselves from violence, or raise physical attacks on others directly themselves.

The landed aristocracy have an interest in maintaining the state. The city aristocracy have a more internationalist outlook. These two forces repeatedly come into conflict with one another. Though at other times their interests overlap. The hoi polloi switching their allegiance between the two forces depending on which worldview seems to be offering the better prospect.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We have a relatively fixed view of the word Jew now (though even now the term is very vague and subjectively defined). However, I think historically the term was much more loosely used, and I think its general sense simply implied an economic group that operated across political or national boundaries. This is probably why we come across tales from the historical record that describe, for example, medieval French Jews that have "little knowledge of Hebrew or Jewish religious texts."

I would suggest that the religious differences between Jews and Christians, etc is the product of this economic/social driving force. Rather than the other way around. The Christianity of the New Testament is likewise probably a product of this. It probably fermented in the Middle East area as at the time this area was the centre of international trade, before the advent of Spanish and Portuguese global shipping destroyed this monopoly. The centre of trade moved from the Mid East to Europe, so the centre of Jewishness or "finance/trade driven aristocracy" moved too simply as a consequence.

Also, if Jewish people are in any way physically different to the wider population then it'll only be in much the same way that the landed aristocracy are different from the general population - i.e. not very different at all, but maybe a few noticeable small differences. Like the way the aristocracy tend to be slightly taller, and also look a little "horsey" when compared to the rest of the population.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 92, 93, 94 ... 299, 300, 301  Next

Jump to:  
Page 93 of 301

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group