The term “global warming” is a
little deceiving. It implies that the problems we may face in the
future are solely going to revolve around higher temperatures. But
what we may be dealing with is something far more complex. Rising
temperatures are really a catalyst for a changing climate. While we
have enjoyed a moderate climate in the past, that does not mean we
will continue to see this kind of environment in the future.
I have talked about the effects of
rising temperatures melting ice, which will cause sea levels to rise,
leading to flooding of coastal areas. But there is also the problem
of all of that fresh water diluting the salinity of the oceans,
causing the Thermohaline Circulation to stop. Maybe you remember
that movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”? It's premise was based on
this effect.
This documentary was first aired back
around 2003. It gives a nice explanation of the Thermohaline
Circulation and its effect on climate, especially Europe's.
There is mention of a study initiated
by the George W. Bush administration, basically “war gaming” a
scenario of what would happen if this occurred in 2010. I found this
rather interesting given that the current occupant of the White House
is seemingly pursuing a policy that refuses to even consider the
possibility of climate change and its dangers. Not to mention
actively undermining any real scientific activity that might be of
benefit to the people of America or the world.
While the movie was a little extreme,
after all it is Hollywood, there is real danger in an abrupt change
in climate. I fear it would make it harder for the occupants of this planet
to adapt.
158 comments:
First, a brief foray off topic:
"There's even a comment buried in there somewhere from YOU…"
Petes @ Mon Jul 31, 03:03:00 am (prior thread)
No, there's not. (Havin’ fun yet?)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
And we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming….
Yeah,
"were gonnna have droughts and a rising of the seas by meters!"
no
"were gonna have an ice cap a mile deep across the northern hemisphere!"
Either or, what ya'll need to do is cherish the undergoing population explosion and accept that "enviromental" taxes put upon you will let beaurocrats in Washington or Brussels tarve off this threat!
Infinity Africans into formerly white nations and higher taxation of natives in those nations - that's the way we deal with this!
Lee "First, a brief foray off topic:...etc"
I's gettin' real tired of you posting after snortging grinded up OcyContine Lee. Try to stay real. C'mon.
"I's gettin' real tired of you…"
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that what you do or don't get ‘real tired of’ might matter.
Gracious as ever, Chumpy. And judgin' by y'all repeatin' yoreself at Sun Aug 06, 01:13:00 am above, Marcus might be right about y'all bein' at the crack pipe. (I don't even need to mention he's right about y'all gittin' whacked in countless arguments).
[Marcus]: "For that matter, the time I myself stopped tryin' to have a debate here was more or less when Pete went AWOL. No one left to actually debate. No Zeyad, no Bridget, no Pete, not even an UmAyad."
Your reminiscences brought back memories, however you're forgetting this isn't the same blog as the one on which all those people participated. To set you straight on the record: this blog was Lynnette's idea, given that the comments on Zeyad's one had become uninhabitable. I set it up initially, with posting rights for me and Lynnette. I knew in advance Lee would be a problem, hence the little warning you can still see above the comments box.
It didn't take too long to realise things weren't working out. I tried to stick out an olive branch to Lee a few times, but he's too thin-skinned and paranoid to accept anything like that. Ignoring him didn't work either. Plus, I can never quite suppress a little inner chuckle thinking about the Great Maronite Debate et al, so I am sure I am not blameless either. Ever since his "great and wonderful PeteS" and "magical mystery math" rants, it seems to me he has painted himself into a corner of never being able to back down on anything. (He'll give you his own version of events in due course).
Anyway, that kind of made things unworkable. I could have banned Lee (as he assumed I would) but it seemed to me there was hardly any point setting up a blog only to censor its inhabitants. Instead I handed the reins entirely over to Lynnette, who has been much better than me at keeping things going, both as article-writer-in-chief and as a voice of calm in the comments. I rescinded my own access rights to to the blog so I no longer have even the possibility of taking a hand in its operation.
As you've noticed, I don't spend too much time around here any more. It's a pity because I too miss the robust but entertaining debates with people I didn't always agree with. But "we are where we are".
"I don't even need to mention he's right about y'all gittin' whacked in
countless arguments…"
Interesting tactic. Rather than win arguements you merely wait until later and proclaim to have won them. Trump would approve. You're learning.
I especially liked the part where you fall into reliance on the word of a guy who's just finished admitting to being a troll.
Lynnette,
I haven't watched your video on the thermohaline current, but it's a subject I've read lots about in the past. The "Day After Tomorrow" scenario is an easy one to visualise but it's probably way too simplistic. I was also going to say that a slowdown of the Atlantic component of the current -- the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC) -- is not borne out by any evidence. However, I hadn't updated my information in a few years, and upon checking I see there are now studies claiming to support the conjecture.
As is often the case with such evidence, measurements lack the level of detail and duration that we would like. So it is available to be hijacked by both sides of the climate change argument. In reality I suspect us non-specialists are seduced by the imagery of the "Atlantic conveyor" and the idea of a literal rigid circulation that can be switched on and off like the baggage carousel at the airport.
If you actually look at infrared imagery of the Gulf stream and other AMOC components, it looks more like those time lapse pictures of the atmospheric circulation over the Atlantic -- chaotic gyres that spin and swirl and break away in large blobs, wafting generally north eastward. It seems to me that such conditions could change on all sorts of time scales -- we already know about so-called "decadal oscillations" in both Atlantic and Pacific.
That makes it hard to interpret data of such short cadence as the few studies that have been done. Of course, it also increases the credibility of suggestions that things can change very abruptly on short timescales. But I'm fairly sure we're not in any position to make predictions yet.
"I knew in advance Lee would be a problem, hence the little warning
you can still see above the comments box."
And, just to correct your recollection, just ‘cause I can and it's here close and it's easy. "The little warning you can still see above the comments box" does not speak to your non-existent predictive powers, but does speak poorly of your ability to recollect things except through your fantasy filter that changes your memory of the past to comport with what you wished had happened instead. So, with that in mind…
1. You didn't add the comments box until after this blog was well under way, and after a commenter other than I had taken to posting strings of vulgarities.
2. Actually, I think I'll save the rest for later, now that I think about it. You can't find that comment supposedly by me that I never made but that you imagined up instead in the last thread, and which I reminded you of at the top of this thread, and now this'll make two imaginaries in a row for you. That should do for now. I'll save the rest for later if I need them.
Yore one quarter right. The "gratuitous cussin'" part of the comment box was aimed at someone other than you. The "provocation" part was added for yore benefit. This is easily established by checkin' the early comments. My even earlier (and correct) premonition about you bein' a pain in the ass is supported by other evidence, which you may or may not be privy to and I don't much care either way. Bein' right in an argument with you stopped bein' fun a long while back.
"The ‘provocation’ part was added for yore benefit."
So much for your claim to have known ‘in advance’. Also, you should learn a little more math, like how to do fractions. (Maybe learn some more physics while yer at it.)
Lynnette,
I finished watching that documentary. It's severely alarmist. I also dug out the Wood's Hole study that is cited, and noted the same thing. If you dig into it, it basically agrees with me: abrupt climate change is possible, but we have little idea how likely it is.
Here's one quote relating to the Atlantic circulation: "The interactions and processes that affect this major north-south thoroughfare of heat and water masses have not been adequately observed and remain largely unknown." That is followed by a list of the "known unknowns" that beset the issue.
Undoubtedly if the worst case scenario came to pass, we in Northern Europe would be royally screwed. I was reminded of some stuff I was looking at recently (in connection with some oil shares that I'd prefer I didn't have, but that's another day's story).
A few weeks ago, a drill ship started drilling for oil in the Porcupine Seabight off Ireland. The area is like an underwater bay, where the seabed rapidly dives from the level of the continental shelf to the abyssal plain which, at nearly 5000 metres, is deep enough to sink the tallest of the Alps or Rockies without trace. On one edge the seabight is bounded by the Porcupine Bank which rises to a depth of 200 to 400 metres. It is located 200 km off the most south westerly corner of Ireland, where today the Gulf stream produces a warm, wet micro climate that supports a variety of sub-tropical plant species.
Very striking in the sonar images of the Porcupine Bank taken by the oil prospectors are a large number of random streaks on the seabed. The geologists say that these are iceberg scours, from bergs that calved off the ice sheet that extended all the way to the edge of the continental shelf. It is hard to wrap one's brain around such a vista: ice cliffs that rose 700 metres above the water line, and several hundred metres below it, on a coast line that bore no resemblance to the location of the present day land margin ... very few of the today's surface features of Ireland would have even caused a ripple in the endless ice plain.
The return of such a scenario would clearly mean Armageddon for the region. On the other hand, the dire warnings often don't make sufficient distinction between extreme scenarios which occur on long time scales and less extreme ones which humans have been dealing with even within the post-glacial warm period. Maybe we should be asking what level of climate stress we could endure. Could we manage the sort of change that scuppered some of the Egyptian dynasties or the Anasazi in the American southwest? The answer is probably that we're already managing it.
The settlement of the US Mid-West and the Great Plains coincided with a wetter than average period. The dust bowl represented a return to more normal conditions (although obviously "normal" depends on the time period you average over). Changes in technology, land usage, ploughing and irrigation practices have kept the region productive in spite of little amelioration in the climate conditions.
Climate change is like asteroid impacts -- on long timescales there are planet killers, with hiccups of various sizes on shorter ones. Anyway, enough rambling for now.
[Lee]: ... stuff ...
Yawn.
Yeah, retreat would indeed be your best option at this point; I commend you for (perhaps) finally learning to when to not press your total lack of advantage. (Under feigned yawn is a good added touch.)
Just ‘cause it's Petes and it is a typo for him to glory on…
"Yeah, retreat would indeed be your best option at this point; I commend you for (perhaps) finally learning when to not press your total lack of advantage. (Under feigned yawn is a good added touch.)"
"…and now this'll make two imaginaries in a row for you."
It just occurred to me, what with your faulty math it's now up to three in a row. That should do for now.
But I'm fairly sure we're not in any position to make predictions yet.
I would agree to a certain extent. I say that because I think the prediction that things are changing is actually accurate. I don't think that we understand exactly how the climate control of Earth really works, as there seem to be many factors that play a role. But there is enough evidence, I feel, that a change is underway.
When Marcus talks about the immigration problems in Europe creating societal strain I have to wonder how an abrupt climate change would affect them, and us too. That's why I began to think about the possibility of an ice age. There has been abrupt climate change in the past, such as the Younger Dryas, which resulted in very cold conditions for at least part of the planet. There is nothing to say this could not happen again. The documentary seemed a good example, though, of people searching for answers through the use of science, which seems to be somewhat lacking in my country's government at the moment.
A brief side note for Marcus. Nader, you didn't mention Nader in your walk down memory lane. He was someone I conversed with quite frequently at Zeyad's.
And, glad to hear Zeyad is ok.
Climate change is like asteroid impacts -- on long timescales there are planet killers, with hiccups of various sizes on shorter ones.
It is those hiccups that you need to look out for, though. ;)
"There has been abrupt climate change in the past…. There is
nothing to say this could not happen again."
We are currently experiencing a faster atmospheric chemistry change than has ever been the case save for cataclysmic events (asteroids or volcanoes or such) The speed of climate change might very well be similarly accelerated.
The speed of climate change might very well be similarly accelerated.
Possible. People just don't want to believe the extreme scenario, because nobody wants to seem alarmist. *sigh* Or they are just too wrapped up in other things to listen to what the environment is telling them.
I forgot, I was going to address this last night:
Maybe we should be asking what level of climate stress we could endure. Could we manage the sort of change that scuppered some of the Egyptian dynasties or the Anasazi in the American southwest? The answer is probably that we're already managing it.
This may be true. But sometimes if you add up many instances of extreme events, such as Hurricane Katrina, you find that resources needed to recover are depleted and it becomes harder and harder to bounce back.
[Lynnette]: "People just don't want to believe the extreme scenario, because nobody wants to seem alarmist."
Some people do want to believe the extreme scenario because humans have a tendency to fear the worst. However, future scenarios should not be a matter of belief, but of probability. Science may be able to give us accurate odds some day, but at the moment all it says is that extreme scenarios are "more probable". That is the nature of today's climate models.
[Lynnette]: "But sometimes if you add up many instances of extreme events, such as Hurricane Katrina, you find that resources needed to recover are depleted and it becomes harder and harder to bounce back."
Yes. Eventually you have to learn some hard lessons: that building a city surrounded by water on three sides, on a river delta which you then drain so that the city sinks and the delta erodes, may not be the greatest idea ever. This was all known about years in advance and remedial works were ignored.
Basically you have three choices: take mitigating action in advance where possible, abandon structures to the rising water where inevitable, or do nothing and take your chances. For extremely low probability events taking your chances may be the sane course of action. But it wasn't in New Orleans, nor is it now in some parts of Florida.
Basically you have three choices: take mitigating action in advance where possible, abandon structures to the rising water where inevitable, or do nothing and take your chances.
I agree. My fear is that too many people in the current US government lean toward the last option. What I would prefer to see is at least some reasonable effort to look into the first two options, giving us a chance for flexibility to deal with future events. As you pointed out, some low lying coastal areas of the US are not heeding the warning. So, we may see another Katrina, with more damage and more costly repairs.
I notice that Shorthands is threatening ‘fire and fury’ and such against North Korea on account of The Washington Post has published information they got from leaks of the NIA, to the effect that North Korea has already built (but not yet tested) miniaturized atomic bombs capable of being mounted on those ICBMs they've been testing recently.
I gotta assume that the bluster from Shorthands is mostly for the consumption of his own voters, as the North Koreans have presumably known for a long time that they had built a miniaturized atomic bomb.
[Chumpy]: "I gotta assume that the bluster from Shorthands is mostly for the consumption of his own voters"
One assumed the same about Big Ears, who was a considerable media whore just like Shorthands. So none of that is news or even noteworthy, which begs the question why you feel the need to report it here. You know it's gonna be the same for the next three-and-a-bit years. Could you not find something of vague interest to write, or even whinge, about?
"One assumed the same about Big Ears…"
That would mean that you assumed ‘the same’. ‘Cept I don't recall Obama talkin’ ‘bout ‘fire and fury’ the likes of which have never been seen before, or anything even remotely approaching such bluster.
I think you're having another fantasy attack there; I don't think Obama ever indulged in such over-the-top threats of force. Ain't a matter of my not recalling it, I don't think; rather, it never happened, and your equating the two is a more a matter of you remembering shit that never happened--you have a fantasy problem playing out once again right in front of us.
"You know it's gonna be the same for the next three-and-a-bit years."
What we know is that Shorthands is erratic and impulsive. He might actually do something stupid.
‘Shock and Awe’ was from Dubya, by the way, not Obama, just in case you're tempted to try to pretend otherwise.
And, moving along to another subject having to do with Shorthands…
It appears that Shorthands has determined that his approach to combating the white, working-class opioid epidemic running through the American mid-west is gonna be a ‘law and order’, ‘lock ‘em up’ criminal enforcement approach.
I think he's probably gonna lose some dedicated Trumpkins over that one. Be several months before it sinks in with them, but that may just hit their consciousness at an inopportune time for him, say late fall or early winter.
[Chumpy]: "That would mean that you assumed ‘the same’. ‘Cept I don't recall Obama talkin’ ‘bout ‘fire and fury’ the likes of which have never been seen before, or anything even remotely approaching such bluster."
If y'all were able to see through the spittle on yer screen y'all would notice I never suggested anything of the sort. Quite the opposite, Obama was fonder of inventin' red lines that he never enforced.
[Chumpy]: "What we know is that Shorthands is erratic and impulsive. He might actually do something stupid."
What we know is that the North Korea situation will not stand still, as it continues to develop WMDs and its ability to deliver them to further flung targets. Y'all's inability to think rationally when it comes to Shorthands ought not obscure the fact that at some point a serious and credible threat of gittin' vaporised may be the only thing that keeps NK in check. It has already threatened to attack your territory. At some point ya might wanna consider the US's strategic interests, and not yer petty personal likes and dislikes, 'cos you may be damn sure Pyongyang dudn't give a shit about them.
"y'all would notice I never suggested anything of the sort."
Reads like you suggested something exactly of that sort. Reads specifically as if you suggested that you ‘assumed the same about Big Ears…’. ‘Big Ears’ being Obama. But that's okay, we're used to you not meaning what you say. Empty babble from Petes is not new.
"…at some point a serious and credible threat…"
Now, see, there ya are doin’ it again. That reads as if you propose to argue that Shorthands actually presents a credible figure on the world stage. I gotta figure not even you still believes that.
Oh, and by the way…
I was listening to Radio-Right-Wing this afternoon, and they were working real hard on the argument that this was all Obama's fault, ‘cept for the part that was Clinton's fault, and so Shorthands doesn't really have to do anything about it.
Presumably that'll also run on ‘Fox and Friends’ in the morning and Shorthands will notice and perhaps even adopt this as his operating theory of non-accountability.
[Chumpy]: "Reads like you suggested something exactly of that sort."
And it sound like you either can't read or wuz havin' another "meaning of 'if'" moment.
[Chumpy]: "I was listening to Radio-Right-Wing this afternoon..."
Well don't let me stop ya givin' y'all's self an ulcer. I got less depressin' things to do so I shall leave ya get back to the normal whinge fest.
Don't wanna press that argument about Shorthands being ‘credible’ I take it. Yeah, that wasn't really a good move for ya either. Sooner you backed away from that one the better.
And, I notice that Rex Tillerson is out this morning downplaying the threats Shorthands made yesterday. No ‘imminent’ danger of Shorthands actually carrying out that BS about meeting further threats with ‘fire and fury’.
I would hate to say that Trump is all hot air just in case he does stumble into a conflict with North Korea.
Apparently we're supposed to be thankful that Shorthands poses ‘a serious and credible threat’ of getting us into that conflict with North Korea.
It does seem as if we have two loudmouthed, immature leaders who are butting heads at the moment.
I have to suspect that things are not going too well internally for Kim Yong-Un, that he is being so bellicose. If that is the case we run the risk of North Korea imploding, sending refugees streaming across its borders into neighboring countries.
"I have to suspect that things are not going too well internally for
Kim Yong-Un, that he is being so bellicose."
It is also possible that he only knows that one move, maybe only one move is necessary to remain on top in North Korean politics; so now he's gotta double down on that one move because he knows no other moves.
Pete:
"Anyway, that kind of made things unworkable. I could have banned Lee (as he assumed I would) but it seemed to me there was hardly any point setting up a blog only to censor its inhabitants. "
Why on earth would you have ever thought of banning Lee? That would've been like banning opinions if anything. Cause Lee, dreary and boring as he might be has NEVER so far as I have seen said anything that warrants a ban. Never afaik overstepped any of yall's rules here.
To be stupid or to hold insane opinions does not warrant a ban. That'd be just anti-free-speach.
If you had banned ME I might have accepted it, as I have been breaking yall's rules on "proper speach" on occation (a few times - but not that many really - but sometimes).
But Lee. C'mon. There's much to say about Lee and I have said a lot myself, but banning him? Fuck, if you did that I'd zone out myself, cause then this would be akin to a North Korea opinion poll. And then, what the fuck would be the point of coming here at all?
Pete: "Ever since his "great and wonderful PeteS" and "magical mystery math" rants, it seems to me he has painted himself into a corner of never being able to back down on anything."
So what? If he wants to dig himself ever and ever and ever into that rabbit hole, what's the deal? Frankly it's YOU that provides him a shovel, no one else gives a shit - and I do mean NO ONE.
You think the rest of us are so stupid we are swayed by attrtion? As if we look at a thousand posts and suddenly realise "well Pete beat Lee" or "Lee beat Pete"?
C'mon, we knew our stance pretty much from te get go. And our stance is pretty much gonna stay the way it is. You don't make bolsheviks outta fascists and you don't make trannies outta believeing Jesuits.
You can impact, but only on the margins.
You can impact, but only on the margins.
At least looking at other people's points of view, and questioning our own, might help to curb the extremist tendencies out there.
There will be a solar eclipse in 10 days. Years ago people thought it was some kind of ill omen. Now we understand it to be a natural event. That came from people questioning superstition and beliefs with no scientific facts to uphold them.
Critical thinking is imperative for learning and progress.
Lynnette:
"At least looking at other people's points of view, and questioning our own, might help to curb the extremist tendencies out there."
Of course Lynnette. We should all be open to arguments from other people. But no one (sane) swiches from one position to the opposite just like that.
I still have hopes I can make you race contious Lynnette, that you might one day see that the white race is in dire straits, and accept 14. Not 88, I do not adhere to that part myself, but the 14 part I do.
But I am aware I am up against a behemoth of a MSM propaganda opponent, so my efforts may well be in vain. 14.
Also, Lynnette, as you are so concerned about the enviromnent and "global warming", the UN just now came out with this report:
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf
The population of Africa is set to grow from today's 1.2 billion to 4.5 billion in 2100.
Let's do some math:
4.5 - 1.2 = 3.3 (that'd be added africans until 2100 - births minus deaths)
2100 - 2017 = 83 (years until africa reaches 4.5 billion)
3.3 B / 83 = approx 4 million more africans per year.
4 million / 365 days = about 11.000 per day.
Africa adds 11.000 more people PER DAY and they are already fleeing that vast continent into tiny Europe because they can't get a decent livelihood at home.
How do yu see that playing out over time Lynnette, and how do you sway your concern for the environment with your simultaneous concern that all them people have a RIGHT to come into the west and consume and consume?
Just curious how you do that cultural marxist math and get to an end result that actually works?
Cause to me this whole equation seems destined to spiral into chaos and mayhem...
As for the size of Africa, you probably don't know this. Because maps tend to portray areas around the equator as smaller and the far from the equaor as bigger.
Anyway; Inside Africa you could fit:
The USA
Western Europe
Eastern Europe (sans asiatic Russia)
China
Japan
Britain
http://kai.sub.blue/en/africa.html
That's how big Africa is. It also contains much of the most fertile lands on earth, so there should be no issue with food scarcity.
As a matter of fact, when whites still ruled Rhodesia that small portion of Africa could almost feed the entire continent. Of course Mugabe put paid to that.
Now though, boats (bought and paid for by Soros and his ilk) are swarming across the Med. Cause Africans apparently need to "flee".
You see, with the population expectations of the UN I linked to, and the current state of affairs, what this leads to? Or don't you? Or do you not care?
Welp, outta them billions a couple hundreds did enrich Europe thesse last days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGw5UXmohUQ&feature=youtu.be
If we're ever going to Mars these are the people we need! Rocket scientists all. A huge loss to Africa (which is 20 times the size of western Europe) that these young men for some inexplicit reason chose to leave their women behind, cross the seas at great peril, only to save us from our old stale ways.
Africa is roughly ⅔ the size of Asia, roughly 20% larger than North America.
And if it weren't for migration from Africa there wouldn't be any people in Europe, including also Sweden to complain about migration from Africa.
Actually, when ya get right down to it, the notion that Europe even qualifies as a distinct continent is a fairly dubious proposition.
What's your point Lee? Cause I see no point. And you're usually 'bout makin' points 'bout points. But here you have no point. So your point doesn't even have a point to lean on. So, what gives?
Like, if they we'ren any dinosaurs then no life in North America would exist today so that warrants no life in North America should be permitted cause there are no dinos?
WTF you gettin'at fat boy? Ya'll make less sense than a possum dragged into broad day light and shot and skinned and put up on a wall in the hunters cabin of a fat NIMBY republican.
Lee: "Actually, when ya get right down to it, the notion that Europe even qualifies as a distinct continent is a fairly dubious proposition."
It's part of the biggest continent on this planet. NO ONE on the right has ever claimed whites should rule that entire continent. I dare you to present such a claim.
Europa is the realm of white men on the continent. Incidentally them were the men that went over and made the USA what it is.
You think if say Nigerians somehow managed to float across the seas and establish a foothold in America that you would have had the USA today?
The USA is a creattion od white euroean people and ya'll know it!
(fucking disgusting etno-mashochist as you might be you know it)
Thing is HATE is brewing in all of our communities. Fucking shitlibs with their vanilla-latte feel good instagram posters. A selfish generation where likes on Facebook is the most important. They are on the way OUT. They will be remembered as fucking traitors. Gen Z and millennials are WOKE.
Get with the progam or get sidelined. The youth are our future.
"Incidentally them were the men that went over and made the USA
what it is."
Them what made the USA what it is today were those who rejected the European notion of ethno-purity and instead forged one nation out of the various, distinctly ethnic or religious colonies envisioned by the original European model of settlement.
In countries or areas where fertility is already below the replacement level, the population is
expected to decline in size unless the loss due to the excess of deaths over births is
counterbalanced by a gain due to positive net migration. However, international migration at or
around current levels will be unable to compensate fully for the expected loss of population tied
to low levels of fertility, especially in the European region. Between 2015 and 2050, the excess
of deaths over births in Europe is projected to total 57 million, whereas the net inflow of
international migrants is expected to be around 32 million, implying an overall reduction of
Europe’s population by about 25 million.
It seems that Europe may not need to worry about overcrowding because of migration from Africa or elsewhere. It's population, if trends continue as is, will decline.
A white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia has been called off before it got off the ground (CBSNews) as white supremacist marchers encountered resistance from college kids, townspeople, and shopowners along the route of the march. I haven't seen any numbers on this one yet, but previous white supremacist gatherings in Charlottesville have been seriously outnumbered by counter-protestors. This time they claimed they'd bring in white supremacists numbering in the thousands (expected anywhere from two to six thousand). These are the ‘14’ and ‘88’ folks Marcus was talkin’ up earlier. It appears they didn't get through the even the first line of the resistance.
Score one for the good guys.
Wait, there's more...it appears the Governor of Virginia called a state of emergency.
Virginia's governor declared an emergency, and police worked to disperse hundreds of protesters in Charlottesville after clashes broke out ahead of Saturday's "Unite the Right" rally of white nationalists and other right-wing groups.
Fistfights and screaming matches erupted shortly before rally's scheduled noon ET start. The skirmishes unfolded following a scuffle Friday night between torch-bearing demonstrators and counter-protesters at the nearby University of Virginia.
These are the ‘14’ and ‘88’ folks Marcus was talkin’ up earlier.
I did drop in to ask Marcus if they were friends of his.
Lee: "Them what made the USA what it is today were those who rejected the European notion of ethno-purity"
Nigga please! LOL! You really think the settlers in the USA and those who fought the British Crown for independence did so out of love for racial diversity?
You really are a hoot sometimes Lee. Dumb as a box of rocks but at least funny.
You might owe me a new laptop as I sprayed a gulp of beer right over my current one reading your inane crap but I wiped it off and it sees to be working so you might get a pass on that.
Lynnette:
"I did drop in to ask Marcus if they were friends of his."
Very hard to say as it appears it was a gathering of everything from civil right wing proponents mostly pointing out the importance of free speech (which I wholeheartedly agree with and wish we had in Europe too) down to the worst dregs of the KKK.
I guess I would have found friends among them, but I certainly do not vouch for everyone there.
Richard Spencer seems like an OK guy from what I've read so far, so you can maybe hate on me for not denouncing him? I don't really know of to many of the other guys there.
Lynnette: "It seems that Europe may not need to worry about overcrowding because of migration from Africa or elsewhere. It's population, if trends continue as is, will decline."
First of all, and again I address your environmental concerns, what's the problem with a declining population really? It's not like we'll go extinct. Babies ARE being born.
I never understood how otherwise seemingly sane people got on board with this whole "must have growth" paradigm, and usually the same people whine about the environment. It's completely absurd. It speaks to a non-functional thought process.
Could you REALLY be THAT stupid Lynnette, as to advocate less stress on the environment but also advocate infinity Africans into Europe out of some fear we will manage to increase our populations without them?
I just can't even...
I'm lost for words...
You're white, right? You do have an IQ over 90, right? Just checking.
"…and those who fought the British Crown…"
The original settlers were long dead when those who fought the British Crown took up their fight. And a good number of those latter were well aware of and dismayed by the discord between what they preached and the chattel slavery that they allowed to continue in the southern states. They were laboring under the belief that slavery was going to exhaust itself as economically uncompetitive, and that they wouldn't have to actually deal with that--would have worked too, writing was already on the wall for those who could see it, except they did not foresee the invention of the cotton gin which roiled the market for fieldhands to serve the looms in industrial England and France and gave new life to that peculiar institution, which was dying out of its own accord when they took up arms against England.
I do not, and did not, claim that they were motivated to rise against England by some love of racial diversity. However, they were enamored of the idea that ‘all men are created equal’ in the eyes of the law and in their rights in society. And they recognized their failure to outlaw slavery in America at America's beginning as our ‘original sin’.
Lee: "However, they were enamored of the idea that ‘all men are created equal’ in the eyes of the law and in their rights in society"
And way back then when they did think that they thought of "men" as male and white.
As for slavery it's obvioulsly a crime against humanity. But don't go thinking it was a white-on-black crime.
Sweden was actually the very first nation state to outlaw slavery (Träldom) and there were no blacks in chains here, they were all white slaves.
People have done bad shit to other people all through history and slavery is one of those black marks, but it's not all the fault of whitey.
For that matter you might wanna check up on who actually ran the transatlantic slave trade and owned the ships, and you'll find a whole lotta -bergs and -steins in that hidden part of history.
Back then there were ‘free men of color’ in the original thirteen United States; not all blacks were slaves. If they met the other requirements (owning adequate property mostly), male black freemen were allowed all rights and privileges as citizens including the right to vote.
And, in Modern English, until just here recently, the general rule was that group nouns were male in form, but also encompassed the females in the group. (Female forms fell out of general usage during the late Middle Ages and early Modern Era.)
Lee: "Africa is roughly ⅔ the size of Asia, roughly 20% larger than North America."
Yeah, it's HUGE! North America includes Mexico and Canada and Alaska. It's imense.
Alright then, when at least half of them 4.5 Billion Africans in 2100 will want to escape the dysfunctional societies they are unable to improve then YOU take 'em then.
2 Billion Africans into the good 'ol US of A seems fine, right? Gonna work like a charm. Obamacare for the whole lot of 'em. No probs. Fur realz.
Post Script:
"Back then there were ‘free men of color’ in the original thirteen
United States; not all blacks were slaves."
Slavery had already begin to prove itself economically uncompetitive in America. It was falling out of favor among those who'd originally profited from it. Black freemen were becoming more and more common. The invention of the cotton gin changed all that.
"male black freemen were allowed all rights and privileges as citizens including the right to vote."
Really, I did not know that.
Regardless, it was white Europeans who founded America and they did so for freedom from the feudal systems in their European homelands, NOT because of anti-racism.
To even suggest the original settlers were like AFA activists is stupid on a galaxian level.
"YOU take 'em then."
No. Don't gotta. Those boats they use will never get past the Canary Islands on their best days.
The restriction of the vote to White men was generally implemented after slavery suddenly became profitable again. (I believe there may have been some places where one had to belong to the established church, but I don't think any of the original thirteen states originally included racial restrictions; those came about much later after slavery became profitable again in the service of the textile industry in Europe.)
Lee: "Slavery had already begin to prove itself economically uncompetitive in America. It was falling out of favor among those who'd originally profited from it. Black freemen were becoming more and more common. The invention of the cotton gin changed all that."
No one is advocating slavery here. Of course it was bad. Immoral. Never mind if it was economically sane or not it was a black stain on humanity.
But as I said, it was not a white on black crime over all. In North America that migt be the case, but during history most slaves were not black.
Think of the Roman Empire that was built on slave labour. No black slaves there.
Yet you don't see other races bitching 'bout enslavement hundreds of years ago. You get up, get going and go on.
"Yet you don't see other races bitching 'bout enslavement
hundreds of years ago."
African-Americans faced a unique post-slavery environment. The white southern population never quite came to terms with having lost the Civil War; they compensated by instituting formal, legal discrimination against and persecution of the blacks in their midst (and much more vicious informal discrimination and persecution). You should look up the term ‘Jim Crow’.
They were stopping and setting fire to buses full of college kids (with the kids inside) who traveled black and white together in public transportation, Greyhound Buses, across the south in defiance of local ‘custom’, as late as 1961 (the Freedom Riders they called themselves). 1964 and 1965 saw landmark anti-discrimination legislation, long overdue, on the federal level just so blacks could actually vote in the South. And there's so much more we could get into…
The white southern population didn't take well to losing that war, and they took it out on their black population for decades thereafter.
In fact, there's a whole ‘nother post there for Lynnette if she wants to just hit the highlights. "Slavery by Another Name", and "The Freedom Riders" just to name a couple of PBS specials she might direct your attention to.
"To even suggest the original settlers were like AFA activists is stupid
on a galaxian level."
Google tells me that the AFA you're probably referring to was organized in Britain in 1985. I don't choose to follow you into your strawman argument. Suffice it to say that nobody was suggesting what you're trying to claim was suggested.
If you can't get real you might as well get quiet.
Or, get ignored; that one I can do.
Well, it's the end of the week. RCP averages show Shorthands' popularity is down a couple of points on average, hovering around 38% now. link That may be the new baseline, or it could fall even further over the course of the next week, but I reckon this to be the result of his inability to contribute to the repeal of ObamaCare, and it probably represents a loss of support among ideological conservatives rather than any loss among the dedicated Trumpkins. 38%, maybe 37% is probably his new baseline until he proves himself unable to help in getting more conservative agenda items over the finish line. It's all downhill from here for him. The question is, "How far and how fast?"
In fact, there's a whole ‘nother post there for Lynnette if she wants to just hit the highlights. "Slavery by Another Name", and "The Freedom Riders" just to name a couple of PBS specials she might direct your attention to.
Funny you should mention "Freedom Riders". I was googling around the other day for a movie my hair stylist had recommended about a white teacher in a school attended by mainly black students. I thought she said "Freedom Riders", but what she had really said "Freedom Writers. Anyway, both films are based on actual events, and I will check them out. I hadn't heard about the bus incidents.
First of all, and again I address your environmental concerns, what's the problem with a declining population really?
Marcus, you are the one who is getting all hot and bothered about immigration to Sweden ruining the culture. It appears from that UN report that the population in Europe is set to decline, despite the influx of people from Africa or elsewhere. So, in effect, you are the ones who are abandoning the culture, by dying out. Eventually it will be the immigrants who replace you, if their birth rates are higher than native Swedes.
As for climate change, it very likely will kill us off before we get that far, so perhaps you don't really have to worry after all.
Shorthands is taking some shit today for not recognizing that the white supremacists were behind the violence in Charlottesville yesterday. He seems to think (correctly I suspect) that he'll lose more support than he gains if he now offends his hard right winger supporters.
This puts some more of the marginal Republican seats in further jeopardy for 2018. They're not gonna like that.
I noticed he doesn't seem too concerned about making an enemy of McConnell. With his lukewarm condemnation of the behavior of the white supremacists in Virginia he seems to be whittling down his base.
I started watching the documentary on the Freedom Riders last night. I hadn't studied too much of the details of the civil rights movement before.
"With his lukewarm condemnation of the behavior of the white
supremacists in Virginia he seems to be whittling down his base."
If you're talking about the statement from the White House issued today, with the added language about ‘white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazis and all extremist groups’, then I'd point out the language about ‘and all extremist groups’ which was designed to signify to the denizens of Trumplandia an intent to share the blame across the spectrum to include also the enemies of those white supremacists, KKK, and neo-Nazis. They will have noticed it. They will also have noticed that this was a written White House communique. Trump didn't actually say this out loud for attribution, nor did he put it in his Twitter. That will be important to them too. It's a hint from Trump to them; they'll take the hint. They will not be too distressed ‘bout this.
Furthermore, McConnell is not popular with his base. Trump was not too long ago a registered Democrat if you'll remember. Picking up the enemies of ‘the base’ was important to establishing rapport with the now dedicated Trumpkins. Those enemies include McConnell as well as the also hated ‘mainstream media’. Instead of whittling down his base he's actually playing to the dedicated Trumpkins with both of those moves. Problem for him is, the dedicated Trumpkins are only a portion of his current 38% favorable rating. Playing too hard to that portion will drop his overall favorability rating even further.
"I hadn't studied too much of the details of the civil rights movement
before."
Well, then I'll withdraw the suggestion that you post on the subject for the edification of Marcus.
"They will also have noticed that this was a written White House
communique."
Turns out the White House official who read it out also refused to go on record and allow himself to be identified with it.
[Chumpy]: " I'd point out the language about ‘and all extremist groups’ which was designed to signify to the denizens of Trumplandia an intent to share the blame across the spectrum to include also the enemies of those white supremacists, KKK, and neo-Nazis."
Of course, anybody with an unbiased pair of eyes in their head will have seen that the blame should be shared that way. Unless you think that people who turn up to a march with helmets, riot shields, gas masks and cudgels were there to preach peace and tolerance. The USA is threatening to rapidly become a cesspool of partisan intolerance and violence, and rabidly partisan folks like you will be partly responsible, along with the politicians and vested interests who have polarised the political debate.
[Chumpy]: "They will have noticed it... That will be important to them too."
I held my nose and took a look at stormfront.org to check you were wrong and guess what ... you were wrong. What's true is that the extreme right are taking great solace not from anything Trump said (most of them despise him), but from one-sided media reporting that lets them play the victim.
[Marcus]: "Richard Spencer seems like an OK guy from what I've read so far, so you can maybe hate on me for not denouncing him?"
I doubt anyone's surprised at you not denouncing him. I see he's a good pal of your compatriot Henrik Palmgren, another white supremacist.
"Unless you think that people who turn up to a march with helmets, riot shields, gas masks and cudgels were there to preach peace and tolerance."
Those were cops; you can see them in the background here; the dust masks on the guys in the foreground don't count as ‘gas masks’, the ones who had helmets and shields and gas masks and cudgels and such, who weren't cops were right wing, white supremacists.
(Picture of the accused James Field; that's him second from the left carrying a shield but no helmet--guy next to him, his right, also carrying a shield, he has a helmet, but not Field.
"…the extreme right are taking great solace not from anything
Trump said…"
I wasn't talking about anything Trump said. I was looking at what Trump didn't say. If you're gonna try to pretend that your comments are on topic then why not try to actually be on topic?
[Chumpy]: "I wasn't talking about anything Trump said. I was looking at what Trump didn't say. If you're gonna try to pretend that your comments are on topic then why not try to actually be on topic?"
I might try that if you ever decide to converse like an adult. Don't hold your breath. I'm not holding mine.
Ah, pointless insults for the sake of the insults. I assume you're done with the conversation then; that's one of your most common indicators.
But seein' as yore still in need of educatin', do these nice folks at Charlottesville look like right-wingers to y'all? I take it y'all are not familiar with that Iron Front logo.
I know y'all like to whinge about everything bein' Trump's fault, but even you might have difficulty fingerin' them as Trump supporters.
Makeshift shields and no gas masks, no helmets, and no clubs or any other such good stuff as that.
And this on the third day of protests after the fascist elements had previously shown up with shields, gas masks, helmets and clubs and used the clubs and chemicals on folks. Gotta figure some of the far left wingers were gonna arm up eventually. But, even so, you got a couple of stringers here with makeshift shields. That's a far cry from the organized squads of armed fascists who'd been showing up and showed again on Saturday.
Sorry Charlie, ain't even in the same league here.
But you were right about one thing; I wasn't familiar with the Iron Front logo. Ain't enough of them around to worry about. (I wonder if these guys pictured even know anything about that group other than getting the logo off of Wikipedia; anti-Nazi, anti-Bolshevik, doesn't sound bad at first impression; although I suspect you may object to their anti-monarchist inclinations; you've never struck me as being much of a democrat at heart.)
[Chumpy]: "Gotta figure some of the far left wingers were gonna arm up eventually."
LOL. They've been a violent rabble for many years. It is fascinatin' though, watchin' y'all switch to bein' an apologist for violence in the space of a heartbeat, once it's leftwing anti-Trump violence. I see the rightwingers do the same for their brand. That's why yore country is headin' down the toilet. Y'all chipped away at civil discourse until ya got to the bedrock of bare naked aggression. Now everyone wants to play the victim while they act like thugs.
"They've been a violent rabble for many years."
They who?
"It is fascinatin' though, watchin' y'all switch to bein' an apologist for
violence in the space of a heartbeat…"
Perhaps the import of the ‘shields but no clubs’ observation was just over your head. I can see that as a fair possibility.
Okay, so I'm guessing your next move is to find some isolated instance of somebody on the left wing carrying a weapon and then you're gonna pretend that's comparable to the organized squads of armed right-wingers. Right?
Let me help ya with that.
"Candice Maupin, 38, her injured left arm wrapped in a colorful
plaster cast, rested an aluminum baseball bat on her shoulder. ‘I can’t
fight with one arm so I need the bat,’ she said. ‘We are going to
protect ourselves by any means necessary.’
Politico.com
Nope, I'm not in favor of her bringing the bat, broken arm or no, but then neither am I a member of or an apologist for ‘the Revolutionary Communist Party’. (Never heard of those guys before either, although from what I can tell now that I looked them up, they're just a minor handful of people all told.)
"I…took a look at stormfront.org to check…most of them despise him."
Petes @ Mon Aug 14, 02:38:00 am
I took a look too. Ran a word search for ‘Trump’; turns out his name brings up one thread, which leads to a few more threads but not many (not even one of which remotely is connected to Charlottesville, so that doesn't back up your point), and they seem to not quite despise him after all, not in general. But then again, I may have not made as diligent a search as you were disposed to make. How many of them who ‘despise’ Trump did you actually find scattered across those threads?
(Seems to me you're just makin’ up stuff again.)
Five "meaning of if" posts in a row. It's ok -- I understand y'all would like to create a diversion to cover up yore unguarded apologism. But I've learned from long experience that when y'all start babblin' like that it's time to leave y'all to simmer down. I'll be back presently. Y'all can resume the whingin' for now.
You are apparently in need of an English lesson. I can help ya with that too.
Merriam-Webster "apologist"
Ya know, I can't find that ‘Iron Front’ photo in any of the Charlottesville images I've run across on the internet. So, I looked at them again and noticed that everybody in the photo, including people in the distant background, everybody is wearing long sleeves.
I don't see a lot of long sleeves out on the photos I know came from Charlottesville this past weekend. Even the cops were wearing short sleeves, except for the ones in full riot gear. Even the firemen/paramedics were wearing short sleeves. A few long sleeves could be found, but not a lot. (Temperatures were in the upper 80s.) Yet all the people in the Petes' photo of the Iron Front folks were wearing long sleeves.
Whadda ya reckon are the odds that Petes is perpetrating a fraud here and that photo isn't from Charlottesville this past weekend but is from somewhere else at some other time?
Lee: "Shorthands is taking some shit today for not recognizing that the white supremacists were behind the violence in Charlottesville yesterday."
That's a stretch. Obviously one of their members were behind the very worst of the violence, the car attack, which obviously is inexcusable. That played out after a whole lot of other violence though. And as for starting the violence I think AFA (or Antifa) were if not more so, then at the very least equally responsible. Probably more so.
Pete: "I doubt anyone's surprised at you not denouncing him [Spencer]. I see he's a good pal of your compatriot Henrik Palmgren, another white supremacist."
For the record I am not THAT well informed on Spencers positions. I have read a few articles and seen a speech or two, but from what I have seen I feel no need to denounce him.
Palmgren I didn't know of at all until I learned on Saturday he's apparently behind something called Red Ice media, and I only learned abut that when it had been taken down by hackers. So I have not seen ANY of their content yet. It might surprise you given the topics of debate I have been involved with here in recent months especially, but I dont' spend that much time on those sites. And when I do it's almost only swedish sites on the right.
In fact, that Stormfront site you mentioned in another post I have never even visited, although I might check it out soon to see what that's about, although the name sorta gives an incling.
Takimag would be my go to english language site for thoughtworthy right wing stuff and because they have some talented writers and a lot of humour there, but I don't think anyone from there was even involved in this recent rally.
As for THIS rally I confess I got a somewhat bad taste in my mouth when I saw footage from the rally-goers. There's no denying there were large swastica flags flown. And there were hooded KKK folks there too. I was under the impression the so called AltRight wasn't 'bout that but I may have been mistaken. Or they committed a serious error in putting up too large a tent and not drawing a line as for who was welcome in it.
In any case it was not a positive event. It did no good whatsoever as far as I can tell.
On a more positive note at least 4 of the human trafficking NGO:s just got BTFO by Libyas coast guard (probably after behind the scenes pressure from Italy) and will stop their illicit ferry traffic in the Med.
Lynnette: "Marcus, you are the one who is getting all hot and bothered about immigration to Sweden ruining the culture."
I am, actually.
Oh, and speaking about that population boom in Africa I said "let's do some math" and then I did wrong math, because there's only room for 9 digits on my iPhone calculator, so it came out 10 times too small. It's actually 115.000 more people in Africa PER DAY for the next 83 years.
That's what 3.5 billion until 2100 means. That's according to UN projections mind you.
So yeah, there's that. 115K per day.
"I think AFA (or Antifa) were if not more so, then at the very least
equally responsible. Probably more so."
I'm not sure if you believe that because you want to (I'd reckon that the most probable reason), or if you're just gettin’ bad info over there in Sweden. I'll give ya a hint on who's right though. Republicans in Congress are putting large distances between themselves and Shorthands for intimating that what you seem to believe ‘bout it is a credible story (including even those who can usually be counted on to claim the displaying the Confederate Flag is about honoring their dead ancestors).
"…displaying the Confederate Flag is about honoring their dead ancestors…"
Wait, I remember now; it's ‘heritage’; that's the buzzword they use. ‘Honoring their Heritage’ is the claim.
"Trump's initial comments drew praise from the neo-Nazi website
Daily Stormer, which wrote: ‘Trump comments were good. He didn't
attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing
specific against us. ... No condemnation at all.’ The website had been
promoting the Charlottesville demonstration as part of its ‘Summer of
Hate’ edition.
AssociatedPress
Just a small aside. While Minnesota is not in the path of the total eclipse, we will have about an 80% eclipse. But it will occur in the middle of the day on Monday, August 21, so I will probably be at work.
Well, then I'll withdraw the suggestion that you post on the subject for the edification of Marcus.
It is a good suggestion for a post, but a lot of the protests and violence of that period happened in the 60's. While I have heard bits and pieces, I have never looked at events in depth. The documentary I am watching is very informative, but is quite long. I may post a link when I am done watching it for those who would like to see it, either in a post or in the comments section.
I'm still thinking about taking a drive to see the full effect; I can make it there and back in a day, so I don't need ‘a viewing site’ reserved for me, just drive into the path of the eclipse and find a parking lot to set up in or a side road roadside. I'll be waiting for a weather report before I decide if it's worth trying to make the drive.
That's why yore country is headin' down the toilet. Y'all chipped away at civil discourse until ya got to the bedrock of bare naked aggression.
I think you will find violence in all countries to a certain extent. While I agree that civil discourse has been sadly lacking, especially in our leaders, there are still those who believe in speaking softly (and carrying a big stick).
No, if anything, I think greed will be our downfall. Unless we can get a President and Congress in who will put the good of the country before their own agendas.
You'll see some bare naked aggression in that Freedom Riders video. Fifty years ago, same right-winger, white supremacists types. We survived it then; we'll survive it now. Petes is just wishin’ more than thinkin’.
Lynnette earlier asked the rhetorical question, "How did the North Koreans get functional ICBMs so quickly?" PBS Newshour has some people on tonight suggesting they bought models of Ukrainian missiles that were grabbed by the rebels in eastern Ukraine when the east effectively seceded from the government in Kiev (purchases made via Russia).
Just a rumor and theory so far; evidence is fairly ambiguous as of yet, but there's some folks on PBS Newhour tonight who think it's probably true.
[Marcus]: "I was under the impression the so called AltRight wasn't 'bout that but I may have been mistaken. Or they committed a serious error in putting up too large a tent and not drawing a line as for who was welcome in it."
I think you put your finger on it. No right thinking person of any persuasion should have attended such a rally. I do believe Antifa started the violence -- after all, contrary to Chumpy's bleatings that they were goaded into it, they advertised in advance that they would. But anyone who turned up to the rally in the first place had already made the wrong choice.
The hullabaloo about Trump is just the usual left wing whining. His initial statement was both timely and accurate. The rest is just the left's preoccupation with Trump's natural constituency being the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. That, of course, still remains the hysterical fantasy it always was.
[Lynnette]: "Just a small aside. While Minnesota is not in the path of the total eclipse, we will have about an 80% eclipse. But it will occur in the middle of the day on Monday, August 21, so I will probably be at work."
And I will probably be 500 miles to the south of you, enjoying the whole shebang (though I aim to be anywhere between the Ozarks and the Appalachians with suitable weather). I was a bit leery about being in any state adjacent to Lee C, but what the heck ;-)
[Lee C]: "I'm still thinking about taking a drive to see the full effect; I can make it there and back in a day, so I don't need ‘a viewing site’ "
Uh oh ... !
Oh yeah, I'm plannin' to spend the next few days in the deep South. Seems like I timed it just right for the race riots. Thanks, USA. :-(
"The rest is just the left's preoccupation with Trump's natural
constituency being the neo-Nazis and white supremacists."
You are again wrong as usual. ‘Trump's natural constituency [includes] the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Your inability to comprehend that distinction leads you into all kinds of foolishness.
By the way… Long as you decided to revisit the subject:
"I…took a look at stormfront.org to check…most of them despise him."
Petes @ Mon Aug 14, 02:38:00 am
I took a look too. Ran a word search for ‘Trump’; turns out his name brings up one thread, which leads to a few more threads but not many (not even one of which was remotely connected to Charlottesville, so that doesn't back up your point either), and they seem to not quite despise him after all, not in general. But then again, I may have not made as diligent a search as you were disposed to make.
Quaere then: How many of them who claim to ‘despise’ Trump did you actually find scattered across those threads? How many?
And, another, "by the way" type of observation… I notice you didn't provide any further data on that questionable photo of ‘Iron Front’ counter-protesters supposedly seen in Charlottesville.
"Whadda ya reckon are the odds that Petes is perpetrating a fraud
here and that photo isn't from Charlottesville this past weekend but is from
somewhere else at some other time?"
@ Mon Aug 14, 08:32:00 am ↑↑
[Chumpy]: "You are again wrong as usual. ‘Trump's natural constituency [includes] the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Your inability to comprehend that distinction leads you into all kinds of foolishness."
If one failed to make that distinction one would be suggesting that an utterly negligible proportion of the electorate got Trump elected. Even I wouldn't credit the left with that level of stupidity. Now I know y'all would like to turn the tables and credit me with that level of stupidity, but that's a rabbit hole y'all will have to navigate on yer own.
Nevertheless, the left behaves as if the Nazis were Trump's exclusive constituency. As I said, it is their preoccupation. They know it's not true, but it makes good headlines. It's no different to the stupidities that were uttered about Big Ears by the right. Yore failure to acknowledge the parallels are just indicative of yer own bias. Nothing new or interesting in that, though.
"…one would be suggesting that an utterly negligible proportion of the
electorate got Trump elected…"
They are not ‘negligible’. That too is foolishness. They are Breitbart; they are Bannon. They are all over today's zombie remains of the Republican Party.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Still afraid to revisit that photo you posted of the supposed ‘Iron Front’ protesters supposedly in Charlottesville?
I know y'all are mathematically challenged but that's ridiculous, even for you. Breitbart permanent US staff = a couple of dozen people. As a proportion of the 64 million that voted for Trump, that is indeed negligible. Right, that's enough entertaining yer inanities for a while. Go practice yer 12 times tables. Or whatever.
Who convinced you that Breitbart's impact is measured by the number of Brietbart staff instead of the number of Breitbart followers?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Still afraid to revisit that photo you posted of the supposed ‘Iron Front’ protesters supposedly in Charlottesville? Afraid that maybe it might be found instead at a non-news website where folks upload their favorite photos?
Maybe you're afraid that people will notice that the shadows are washed out in the ‘Iron Front’ picture you posted, indicating overcast skies, whereas images from Charlottesville on Saturday show sharp and distinct shadows, i.e. clear to partly cloudy skies?
Maybe that's what you're afraid of?
Pete: "I do believe Antifa started the violence -- after all, contrary to Chumpy's bleatings that they were goaded into it, they advertised in advance that they would."
I'm not sure Lee's as familiar with Antifa as we in Europe are. I'm quite certain it was them that started the violence. Then again Lee often takes a contrarian position he knows to be false because it's the narrative the established media runs with, so who knows with him.
For one thing there was actually that torch lit parade the evening before that was un-announced so Antifa didn't show up in numbers. The right-wingers numbering a couple hundred completely surrounded a group of counter protesters at the General Lee statue. If they had been there to stomp commies like SA-street thugs they for sure had their chance. But no one was harmed. There's video of that. There's just no debate about it. They have about a 10-1 advantage in numbers, they completely surround the protesters, no police in sight, yet no violence.
Imagine if Antifa had had 200 of their thugs surrounding Spencer and 20 or so of his people. I doub't many of them would have even survived. I seriously doubt that. I seriously doubt even Lee actually doubt that. Antifa would have maimed them something awful and most likely several would have died.
Pete: "But anyone who turned up to the rally in the first place had already made the wrong choice."
At the very least when they got there and saw clansmen and swasticas they should have realized it was seriously bad optics to be seen attending. I know the left back in the day could, and to a large extent still can, get away with this policy of "never punching left" where they never denounce radical extremists in their own ranks. They can get away with that, which is regrettable. The right can't get away with that though, which is as it should be really. This rally was a complete failure in that regard.
"I'm not sure Lee's as familiar with Antifa as we in Europe are."
The counter demonstrators were not, in fact, Europeans; neither were the neo-Nazis, and I don't think you guys even got the Klan in Europe. You're not at all familiar with the folks who were actually there. Your speculations have no basis. (Petes' either.)
You're simply indulging in the opportunity to believe what you want to believe in spite of the evidence. (Petes is going it one further and seems to be supplementing his speculations manufactured evidence.)
And, I noticed the Petes’ claim that Breitbart followers and the white supremacists, who are your own fellow travelers, are an ‘utterly negligible’ presence in American politics. Seems you are not the future after all.
"This rally was a complete failure in that regard."
Perhaps you should check out the right-wingers' post-rally claims. They claimed it to be a rousing success, marred only by them losing the physical altercation. Where they used to get a couple of dozen participants, this time they drew in hundreds (not the thousands they'd looked for but a major step up for them in any event). In fact they immediately began planning to build on their success by holding more rallies in Charlottesville and also in the rather more friendly environment of College Station, Texas (more widely known as Texas A&M).
"But no one was harmed."
Except for the guys they beat up. (They didn't provide that video, but they did maul some people by hand--hadn't thought to bring their weapons to the impromptu firelight festival.)
You'll see some bare naked aggression in that Freedom Riders video.
Activists decided to test the reaction of people in the deep south to the national repeal of segregation laws, specifically for buses. The repeal wasn't being enforced, either in the north or the south. They boarded two buses, a Greyhound and a Trailways. These were regularly scheduled routes, meaning there were regular passengers on board, along with a company driver. The Greyhound bus was basically ambushed and ended up being fire-bombed. The Trailways bus made it further along the route, but at one of the bus stations the activists were attacked and beaten by a group of people, with the consent of the chief law enforcement officer. No bus driver would continue on the route and they ended up deciding to fly back. But there was a bomb threat so they had to disembark from the plane, walking through the same group of people who had attacked them earlier, this time at the airport. President Kennedy, who had taken little interest in this matter earlier, finally sent down a federal representative to basically escort them out. That is as far as I have gotten in the video. I will finish it, though. What makes this so interesting is the pictures are real and the people who participated are interviewed, giving their own accounts of what happened. I have to say that the fire bombing of the bus looks very like something you would see in the Middle East. So, yes, definitely bare naked aggression.
PBS Newshour has some people on tonight suggesting they bought models of Ukrainian missiles that were grabbed by the rebels in eastern Ukraine when the east effectively seceded from the government in Kiev (purchases made via Russia).
There was an article about that the other day. In that story it was a factory in Ukraine that had fallen on hard times, selling off product which had been used by Russia in the past. So, the common denominator is Ukraine and the conflict there. It seems to have opened up a rather large can of worms.
And I will probably be 500 miles to the south of you, enjoying the whole shebang (though I aim to be anywhere between the Ozarks and the Appalachians with suitable weather).
So, can we look forward to pictures???
"In that story it was a factory in Ukraine that had fallen on hard times…"
On which side of the rebel lines? Kiev's side, or Moscow's side?
The rest is just the left's preoccupation with Trump's natural constituency being the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. That, of course, still remains the hysterical fantasy it always was.
I suspect that for those, and there were many, who voted for Trump as a protest the idea of being allied with neo-Nazis and white supremacists does not sit well. That is the real reason for the focus on them. Making the point that the hate groups do support Trump, and they do, will hopefully make the more moderate Trump supporters think a little about what they are actually supporting.
There are many people out there who do not want to see fire bombed buses in their community.
Ukraine rocket-maker denies leaking know-how
While denying any illicit technology transfers from the plant in the city of Dnipro, Degtyarev conceded the possibility that the plant's products could have been copied.
It appears the factory is in Dnipro.
" Making the point that the hate groups do support Trump, and they do…"
The real problem there is the nod and wink that Shorthands throws back to them.
Dnipro appears to be technically in the Kiev part of the Ukraine, but not firmly. There appears to be a significant rebel underground there.
Of course, the Kiev side has a significant corruption problem too.
I notice that Shorthands has held an actual news conference this afternoon where he took questions. Bad idea.
He's tried to dig his way out of the hole he dug for himself over the weekend. Told us there were ‘good people’ among those white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and KKK members.
I think he's gonna find Congressional Republicans mostly running away from any association with that one. (A few who won't, but the marginal seats just took another hit and they'll try to back away from it, and anybody who harbors thoughts of running for Prez one day will back away even faster.)
[Lynnette]: "Making the point that the hate groups do support Trump, and they do, will hopefully make the more moderate Trump supporters think a little about what they are actually supporting."
I disagree with both halves of that. Firstly, the neo-Nazis don't support Trump. Have you seen the sort of stuff those animals write about his Jewish daughter and son-in-law working as senior advisors in the White House? It is about as vile as you would expect. I don't know so much about the white nationalists but I presume there is a spectrum of opinion there, just as there was with the black anti-assimilationists in Obama's constituency.
But the part I most strongly disagree with is that this haranguing of Trump will make his moderate supporters sit up and listen. It might, but not the way you think. What it will do is convince them that they were right about the so-called progressive agenda to marginalise them and write them off. It may not actually drive them into the arms of the haters but it will certainly do nothing to heal the divisive political rift.
[Chumpy]: "The real problem there is the nod and wink that Shorthands throws back to them."
'Ceptin' he doesn't. The problem is the people who claim he does, out of their own political bias.
Infamous ex-Klan leader, David Dukes has quickly weighed in on Trump's press conference and thanked the Prez for his support and for his denunciation of the newly imagined ‘alt-left’. That's not exactly gonna be the association most Republican office holders are looking for.
"'Ceptin' he doesn't."
Well, they think he does. And they say so in writing, and have said so before, also in writing, and Bannon sure as hell knows and he's right there as Shorthands' Senior Advisor. And he's too fascinated with his own public standing to not know all this, and, knowing all this, he keeps doing the things they take as giving them the nod and wink.
So, I gotta figure he's doing it on purpose. In other words--that's exactly what he's doing and he's doing it on purpose, even though you want to pretend otherwise.
(Probably doesn't help Petes' argument that David Dukes just came out and publicly thanked Shorthands for his support.)
(Maybe Shorthands will try to pretend to not know who Dukes is again--he's tried that one before, without success, but ya gotta give him his due for persistance.)
"And they say so in writing, and have said so before, also in writing…"
I suppose I should technically have written that they say so publicly and for attribution. Only sometimes do they do the actual scrivening themselves.
"… the black anti-assimilationists in Obama's constituency…"
See, the thing here is, those people may well exist. There's better than 300 million Americans after all and just about any kinda crazy you can imagine can be found somewhere among those better than 300 million people.
But ya can't find enough of them willing to gather together to even surround a bus, much less march by the hundreds in Charlottesville. They ain't exactly a problem. Couple of harmless crazies wanderin’ about.
So, you're to justify a very real problem by comparing it to an entirely imaginary problem. That just don't work for us folks who live in the real world.
Richard Spenser has weighed in feeling very favorable about
Shorthands' brave new moral equivocations.
"A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said
the Kentucky Republican had no new comment in response to
Trump’s remarks Tuesday."
Politico.com
But the part I most strongly disagree with is that this haranguing of Trump will make his moderate supporters sit up and listen.
What the haranguing of Trump really does is make Trump angry. And when a person is angry he is more likely to be honest. So perhaps they may sit up and listen.
During that rally in Charlottesville a man deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people. That was attempted mass murder. There was nothing done by the counter demonstrators that matched that level of violence. That Trump would suggest that the violence was equivalent was simply wrong. Yes, both sides engaged in fighting, using fists and bats, but to ram a car into people on the street is a tactic that Daesh would use. Sure, you can condemn violence in itself, but beyond that is the agenda that the neo-Nazis or the KKK stand for. Their beliefs are morally wrong. That is what Trump seems to be dancing around by his focusing on the use of violence, by whomever. Ultimately the long term danger lies in the beliefs of one side, the extreme right. Those are what Trump needed to condemn immediately.
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. Donald Trump
No, this statement just doesn't get the job done.
"What the haranguing of Trump really does is make Trump angry.
And when a person is angry he is more likely to be honest."
We certainly seem to have gotten a dose of the real Donald Trump today.
By the way, the white supremacist coalition has announced the scheduling of nine (9) more marches in the near future intending to capitalize upon on what they see as their grand achievements and great successes in Charlottesville, including getting the nod and wink from the current President of the United States. (Although the one in College Station, Texas (Texas A & M) is questionable; the college having withdrawn permission--but they may march anyway.)
By the way, FoxNews and ‘The Daily Caller’, a website owned by FoxNews newest semi-super-star talking head, Tucker Carlson, have today taken down an article that's been up on their websites since January which advocates using automobiles to run down clusters of protesters against Trump or right-winger favored projects like Nazi marches and such as that. link In light of the dead chick and the possibility that they might be joined as defendants in a wrongful death lawsuit they found it to be a good idea to remove that particular ‘call to arms’ as it were from their websites.
[Chumpy]: "There's better than 300 million Americans after all and just about any kinda crazy you can imagine can be found somewhere among those better than 300 million people... So, you're to justify a very real problem by comparing it to an entirely imaginary problem."
Your leftwing blinkers are extremely difficult to fathom for an outsider. I mean, it's hard to believe you are for real, though I have a horrible suspicion you are. So you haven't noticed any cops getting shot dead by leftwing haters? You haven't noticed any anarchist violence? Wow. You are a long way down the rabbit hole.
[Lynnette]: "During that rally in Charlottesville a man deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people. That was attempted mass murder. There was nothing done by the counter demonstrators that matched that level of violence. That Trump would suggest that the violence was equivalent was simply wrong."
I don't recall Trump suggesting they were equivalent. But I agree with you that level of violence is on a whole other plane.
Btw, for Chumpy, here's another photo of counter-demonstrators with helmets, shields and masks. I believe this is where the violence first kicked off, with the protestors determined to stop the legally permitted rally going ahead.
Another point which seems to have been largely ignored is the sheer batshit craziness of the authorities in allowing a march like this. Or at least, having permitted it, not to be prepared to get between rival factions and beat them all off the street if necessary. A confrontation like this in a European city is pretty unimaginable. The things you folks allow in the name of "free speech" are pretty stupid imho. Personally, I'd water-cannon them into a large pile on the outskirts of town and then charge them for the clean up. And yep, like Trump, I mean the violent ones on both sides.
"So you haven't noticed any cops getting shot dead by leftwing
haters?"
I have indeed noticed more cops being shot dead lately. The shooters are not, however, primarily ‘leftwing’ much less ‘leftwing haters’. (Statistically more likely the shooter'll be a right winger, unless it's a black guy--different dynamic going for the black guy so I'll just pass that one and go back to the wingers.) Statistically much more likely the shooter of a cop will be a right-winger if there's a non-racial motivation behind the shooting.
And, just for the record, cops are statistically less likely to die on the job than are farmers, carpenters, roofers, about 20 different vocations, and much more likely to kill an unarmed and innocent civilian than are farmers, carpenters, roofers and etc.
Now, that said, I have indeed noticed more cops being shot dead lately. If you want an education on why citizens are starting to shoot back I can do that, but that's another subject entirely, and I'm not sure I want to do that discussion here.
"Btw, for Chumpy, here's another photo of counter-demonstrators
with helmets, shields and masks…"
So, why did you go for using a fake photo the first time?
"I believe this is where…"
You do realize that having been caught peddling fake evidence the first time, your credibility on claims based on ‘your belief’ are seriously compromised, do you not?
And, just by the way, you're wrong. That is not where.
Oh, and I forgot to do up this one…
"You haven't noticed any anarchist violence?"
I have indeed. Anarchists are libertarians (small government--free from government) taken to the extreme. Libertarians are recognized as a ‘boutique’ sub-set of the American right-wing.
Ergo: Anarchists are right-wingers gone clear off the deep end (they may or may not also be racists). Liberals (progressives if you'd rather use that term) believe in government; they may be revolutionaries of any of dozens of political flavors, if they turn into extremists, but are not anarchists; it's the extremist element of the other side that goes anarchist.
I don't recall Trump suggesting they were equivalent.
It was the "violence from all sides" remark, and the "good people on both sides" remark that implied there was some kind of equivalency. Ambiguity in this situation isn't good. It only encourages more overt behavior by those groups who are on the extreme end of the spectrum.
Go it one better.
Quote from Trump: "You also had some very fine people on both sides."
Sorry Charlie, ‘very fine people’ don't march in Virginia under Nazi banners nor alongside robed Klansmen. That don't happen.
Post a Comment