News Round-Up
- “Tokyo Paralympics to go ahead without spectators” – All events at the Paralympics will be held behind closed doors – as was the case with the Olympic Games – due to fears over the Delta Covid variant, reports MailOnline.
- “There are lies, damned lies – and Covid statistics” – We’ve become exposed to more data than ever before during the pandemic, but not all of it is as helpful as it may seen, writes James Le Fanu in the Telegraph.
- “Pingdemic: Clevedon pub closed for Covid will ‘take years’ to recover” – The manager of a pub says they lost thousands of pounds when staff had to isolate for 10 days, reports BBC News.
- “All the freebies and vouchers double-jabbed young Brits can get” – The Sun has compiled a list of all the petty bribes offered to young Brits to incentivise them to get ‘jabbed’.
- “The catastrophic catalogue of vaccine reactions” – No one in power wants to talk about the vaccine damage elephant in the room, writes Sally Beck in TCW Defending Freedom.
- “The authoritarian takeover of Australia” – This once happy and freedom-loving nation is being crushed by its pro-lockdown elites, writes Fred Pawle in Spiked.
- “Joe Biden should hang his head in shame ” – This is America’s darkest hour since September 11th, 2001, writes Richard Littlejohn in the Mail, who says the U.S. has been humiliated in the eyes of the world with President Joe Biden’s surrender to the Taliban.
- “‘World has gone Covid-mad’: Afghans fleeing Taliban need negative PCR test to board now-suspended commercial flights out of Kabul” – The suspension of flights leaving Kabul has left countless civilians at the mercy of the Taliban. But even if flights resume, Afghans fleeing the country will still need to test negative for Covid, reports Russia Today.
- “Attack of the Algorithm: YouTube’s censorship of ‘The Week in Review’” – “At least in Communist countries, wrong-thinkers have the right to a show trial,” writes Luke Perry in his latest column in Bournbrook Magazine.
- “Calls to Cancel Chaucer Ignore His Defense of Women and the Innocent, and Assume All His Characters’ Opinions Are His” – “As Chaucer’s character the Squire dryly observed, people all too often ‘demen gladly to the badder ende’ – ‘They are happy to assume the worst’,” writes Jessica Wollock in the Epoch Times.
- “Statues are not a threat to ethnic minorities” – “It is amazing that this has to be said, but ethnic minorities know what history is,” writes Paddy Hannam in Spiked. “They know that in the past, attitudes to race were not exactly enlightened.”
- “Holly Willoughby out, activist model in – M&S is heading in a woke new direction with its Christmas ad” – It looks like the retailer’s Christmas advertisement, starring an American model-activist, will come with a powerful message, writes Tamara Abraham in the Telegraph.
- “Is this the end of affirmative action?” – “Ironically, it is the assertiveness of today’s racial politics that may make the defence of affirmative action more difficult,” writes Oliver Wiseman in UnHerd.
- “The IPCC Report and the Pivot from Covid to Climate” – The New Normal brigade are prepping us for a change of direction, writes Kit Knightly in offGuardian.
- “Climate Modeling Civil War” – It looks like the climate modeling community may have a civil war on its hands, writes Dr David Wojick.
- “Humans ‘pushing Earth close to tipping point’, say most in G20” – A global survey finds that 74% want climate crises and protecting nature prioritised over jobs and profit, reports the Guardian.
- “Billions to be funnelled into hydrogen subsidies as U.K. races to hit net zero” – Manufacturers are to be guaranteed a price for their hydrogen by the Government so they do not have to sell to consumers at a loss, reports the Telegraph.
- “The true cost of net zero” – “Given that Britain accounts for 1% of global carbon emissions (against 29% for China), a net zero Britain will not mean much unless the entire world makes the same legal commitment,” writes Ross Clark in the Spectator.
- “A Sunday Times investigation reveals WHO failures with China at the start of the Covid pandemic” – Conservative peer Lord Ridley tells talkRADIO: “Those of us who began to raise question about a lab leak were told we were nutters and conspiracy theorists.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“No paralympics spectators due to ‘Delta’ variant fears.”
128 “Covid” deaths reported (Worldometer) in the last week in Japan, 15,408 in total . In a country of 126 million. Must be some very fearful people in Japan. Maybe they should hold the games in Belarus instead? “Better to die standing than live kneeling”. Or indeed live standing. No lockdowns, no restrictions, no problem. I actually felt quite emotional watching some of the football from the Belarusian Premier League last year, played whilst people here were cowering at home.
Belarus has many restrictions, just not Covid restrictions.
So do US sphere countries, let’s face it.
Diktatura u Belorusiji je gora nego lockdown diktatura u UK, US i drugim zapadnim drzavama.
use google translate of you don’t understand.
Why would I bother, if you can’t be bothered to write it in English on an English language forum?
Internet je slobodno mesto, ljudi mogu da koriste jezik koji zele na bilo kom sajtu. [google translate]
I’ll do you a favor and write the next one in that language with annoying and unnecessary complicated spelling (which you call english):
Then the owners of the website cannot claim to be a global site or forum. Change the name to just-UK forum or write a warning sign “just english, we will discriminate against non-english visitors”.
Just like vaccines should come with the warning of side effects so should this website then.
It’s a site written in English, where the comments are generally posted in English. If you think that is discriminatory, that seems frankly a bit weird. I’m not sure the owners claim to be global, though they do try to cover events all over the world, in English. A site like this really needs to have a primary language, and this one’s is English. And the site owners are UK based as far as I know, so the focus will be UK.
“Internet je slobodno mesto, ljudi mogu da koriste jezik koji zele na bilo kom sajtu. [google translate]
I’ll do you a favor and write the next one in that language with annoying and unnecessary complicated spelling (which you call english):
Then the owners of the website cannot claim to be a global site or forum. Change the name to just-UK forum or write a warning sign “just english, we will discriminate against non-english visitors”.
Just like vaccines should come with the warning of side effects so should this website then.”
Why have you shifted the topic to a false and irrelevant assertion about the owners of the site? There has been no statement from anybody about any requirement to post here in any language, that I’m aware of.
My comment was merely to the effect that if you lack the courtesy to express your reply in the language being used in the exchange, why would I feel any need to go to the effort of getting it translated?
You seem to have shifted the topic from personal courtesy to some kind of internationalist grievance-seeking.
not really, the west was once free, and now we are not. Belarus is used to dictatorship.
Jabs Until 2024 – The conspiracy theorist’s got it right yet again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUdbGAMEZEQ
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Look, chap, can you do us a favour and not just spunk your spam into the first reply in every single thread? Post your own comment, please.
“Freebies and vouchers for double-jabbed young Brits”.
Didn’t certain taxi drivers in Heywood do something similar? Probably told ’em lies too.
“Beijing Bidden should hang his head in shame [after fall of Kabul]”.
Apparently the Taliban have a Twitter account – but not Donald Trump. (Thanks to Sir Nigel Farage for that gem).
And that BBC clip of civilians being evacuated from this war zone being instructed to wear masks at all times during the flight – surreal…
“In the past, attitudes to race were not exactly enlightened”.
Maybe, but they got a lot worse after 1859 and that “favoured races” business. Just saying. (Of course, in Roman times, race simply wasn’t an issue, and there were African Romans working on Hadrian’s Wall…)
Race wasn’t an issue?
Have you read Juvenal on the graeculus esuriens?
A generalisation obviously, my point about the empire is that, apparently Africans – Ethiopians? – in what is now the North of England intermarried or at least had relations with the native population. And that anyone could become a Roman citizen and enjoy the protection of Roman law, regardless of race.
“Of course, in Roman times, race simply wasn’t an issue, and there were African Romans working on Hadrian’s Wall“ That’s what modern antiracist dogmatists would like us all to believe, and for sure in different cultures different cultural details of how races were viewed were different. Big shock. But there has probably never been any significant culture in human history prior to that of the modern US sphere that pretended the obviously relevant aspect of race was actually to be doggedly pretended to be utterly irrelevant for dogmatic ideological reasons). Here’s the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (sometimes comically claimed to have been “black” himself because he was born on the southern shores of the Med, but you or I would probably just take him as Mediterranean in appearance if we saw him), demonstrating his early grasp of critical race theory and his own white supremacism,: “On another occasion, when he was returning to his nearest quarters from an inspection of the wall at Luguvallum164 in Britain, at a time when he had not only proved victorious but had concluded a perpetual peace, just as he was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian soldier, who was famous among buffoons… Read more »
the obviously relevant aspect of race was actually to be doggedly pretended to be utterly irrelevant
What aspect of race is obviously relevant to what?
Race (genetic inheritance) is obviously a relevant aspect of human makeup, in that there are generalisations that hold true for different groups. The details are open to debate (or are in a free country, obviously not in this country where expressing the wrong view on it could get you arrested, and would likely result in the loss of job and career).
In the end, we’re all mongrels with varieties of genetic same-iants.
Sure we are, and those genetic variants obviously have no effect whatsoever beyond skin colour because … well because that’s what you desperately want to be the truth. But since dissent on this aspect is prohibited by harsh social sanction and potentially by law, it’s unlikely your parochial dogma will be challenged in this culture. (Nb, if presented with most dogmas of the opposite kind, asserting all kinds of attributes to racial differences, I’d probably criticise them in similar terms, but since they mostly aren’t culturally dominant or relevant and indeed mostly aren’t even legal or culturally acceptable to express, there is no need to do so).
That is such a deep and subtle subject which, like so many things, has become a political weapon used by political groups from left and right to create party loyalty and generate dislike of the opposition. I don’t think the law on discrimination forbids discussion or dissent over the relation of skin colour to other attributes. However, I agree it is socially sanctioned. I welcome this. The relationship between skin colour and other attributes seems to be extremely hard to isolate from environmental and cultural factors. However, the human tendency to label people and make assumptions about people based on those labels is undeniable. There is such an appalling history of the treatment of people based on the skin colour label (and the religion label, and the gender label). And it has been the cause of so much strife and hatred. I think it is far preferable to try and erase those labels from our discourse and risk a bit of clumsy political correctness. An interesting exercise is to try and imagine if the situation were reversed. Suppose the Chinese succeed in global domination and become the socially dominant class (imaginable I think). How would you feel about statues mocking… Read more »
“That is such a deep and subtle subject which, like so many things, has become a political weapon used by political groups from left and right to create party loyalty and generate dislike of the opposition.“ Well yes, exactly, (though the pretence at this being an even-handed “they’re both to blame” situation is laughable – there’s only one side setting these rules and controlling the agenda) and my problem is with a simplistic dogma being imposed universally, by coercion. I don’t agree with the excuses you make for that coercion – I say that freedom of speech and thought are far more important in the long run than any attempt to manipulate society for the supposed greater good. “How would you feel about statues mocking white men?“ Well it’s likely such will come about, in part as one of the results of our abandoning truth for socially convenient ideology, but regardless, and despite the misrepresentation inherent in your comment – very few of these statues “mock” anyone, they’re mostly just statues of significant figures from history – I’ve never been concerned about statues of people I don’t respect, which are commonplace. (As an aside, it would be interesting to investigate… Read more »
Well yes, exactly, (though the pretence at this being an even-handed “they’re both to blame” situation is laughable – there’s only one side setting these rules and controlling the agenda) and my problem is with a simplistic dogma being imposed universally, by coercion. There isn’t a political party setting the rules. There are people who do not approve of certain ways of talking about other people. What both political parties do is try take advantage of that disapproval – on one side by saying “isn’t this wonderful – vote for us and because we are of your tribe and the others are the kind of racist bastards who talk about other people that way” the other side saying “isn’t this awful – vote for us because we are of your tribe and the others are the kind of bastards who will restrict what you can talk about”. Neither claim is true. I don’t agree with the excuses you make for that coercion – I say that freedom of speech and thought are far more important in the long run than any attempt to manipulate society for the supposed greater good. It depends on what you mean by freedom of speech. I can’t think of… Read more »
“There isn’t a political party setting the rules.”
To be more accurate, there are multiple parties representing the elites who set the rules.
“I can’t think of any laws in the UK restricting what you can say outside of slander or incitement to do a crime.”
Then you are ignorant – there is no more polite way to put it honestly.
Research the ways the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 are used. Perhaps contact Mark Meechan to tell him you are going to refund his fine and costs for supposedly breaking the law you claim doesn’t exist.
Of course, direct criminalisation is only one of many ways an intolerant society restricts the freedom to express taboo opinions.
“Incidentally, in Germany, of course, it is illegal to deny the holocaust or disseminate Nazi propaganda. Do you think this is wrong? “
Yes, obviously.
Fair enough. I wasn’t aware of the implications of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act. The text of the acts seems to be about making it illegal to cause harm or intend to cause harm via communications. That seems reasonable – morally it is just as bad to harm someone via false gossip on a YouTube video as putting dog shit through their door. However, you have persuaded me that these laws have been interpreted in way that begins to impinge on rights to free speech. From the description (it is no longer possible to see it), Mark Meechan’s video sounds appalling but I am not sure it should have been illegal. In fact it might have been better to distribute it widely so people could see just what a kind of person UKIP was putting up as a candidate. Nevertheless, I think that in the UK the social constraints on communication are far more important then the legal constraints. I am sure the vast majority of people are as ignorant as I am about the law on communication. Most of us are inhibited by what people will think not by the possibility of breaking the law.… Read more »
“morally it is just as bad to harm someone via false gossip on a YouTube video as putting dog shit through their door. “ You appear to have switched the issue here to slander/libel, which is an entirely separate, and complex, matter. Otherwise, if you are to place so much weight on “harm” then you need to define it carefully and if you wish to preserve liberty you have to adhere to the old wisdom that “sticks and stones” etc. Otherwise you end up where we are now. You have no problem with that, of course, because you have no sympathy with the people and views that are suppressed. That’s shortsighted, but a very common attitude. “Mark Meechan’s video sounds appalling” No, it was just a childish joke, and amusing if you like that kind of thing. Of course, a prig or a manipulative liar will always manage to be “appalled” by such, or pretend to be, if it suits his purposes. “Nevertheless, I think that in the UK the social constraints on communication are far more important then the legal constraints“ Yes. of course. We are nowadays a society that is hugely intolerant, in the way you describe yourself as… Read more »
I suppose I think we should not be tolerant of bad behaviour or behaviour that inadvertently does harm. If everything is tolerated then there is no morality.
So really comes down to what kind of behaviour is tolerable.
Again, no, it comes down to what you define as actionable “harm”.
If you haven’t yet noticed the problems created by pretending people being offended counts as harm, then you are unlikely ever to do so, until the coercive structures and intolerant attitudes you condone eventually come to be applied to something or someone you yourself feel strongly about.
When I want illustrations of ‘ parochial dogma’, I’ll certainly come to you for an example of it:-)
I’m not sure why you get so worked up about the obvious truth that I expressed. But I’m impressed that you now seem to have solved the conundrum of the interaction of culture, history, geography and genetic make-up. And an ability to mind-read as well! Wow!
The adolescent silliness of the rhetoric around the discrimination agendas doesn’t alter the fundamental issues.
“When I want illustrations of ‘ parochial dogma’, I’ll certainly come to you for an example of it:-)”
You’re the one parading his loyalty to the received dogma, not me.
“I’m not sure why you get so worked up”
Not sure why you think I’m “worked up”. I’m not particularly, at least in respect of your entirely unsurprising unoriginality.. All I did was point out how empty and cliched your comment was.
ITEM: “The authoritarian takeover of Australia” – This once happy and freedom-loving nation is being crushed by its pro-lockdown elites, writes Fred Pawle in Spiked. It gets more Looking-Glass by the day in the Land of Oz. The Victorian state Premier is taking no virus prisoners, still aiming at total elimination and threatening weeks more lockdown of Melbourne. The New South Wales Premier says elimination is impossible but is aiming to mitigate/suppress it to low levels (default elimination requiring more weeks of lockdown). Darwin, the capital city of the Northern Territory, has, in defiance of its scientific namesake, just gone into another, unscientific, week-long lockdown (bringing the new total of state lockdowns to an impressive 21). The Western Australian Premier has made a vaccine passport a condition for the heathen from the eastern states to enter his hermit kingdom. The useless Prime Minister is, as usual, having two bob each way – saying we must learn to live with the virus but advocating lockdown as a first-response to ‘outbreaks’ and failing to reign in the lockdown-trigger-happy state Premiers. Chief government health officers continue to be deified. Civil liberties are smashed, economies gutted, masks mandated, ludicrous ‘social distancing’ rules enforced with tape measures and the threat of… Read more »
Cancer deaths 9% up? So off the top of my head, that would mean the increase in cancer deaths alone is greater than the number of “Covid deaths” in Oz. And that’s just cancer. Last Summer there was a report on this site saying that in the UK, over 20,000 had been killed by the lockdowns already – and a leaked item from a SAGE meeting saying that there will eventually be 75,000 deaths caused by lockdowns etc. Even if it isn’t more than this, and setting aside knock on deaths caused in third world countries, more than enough to dwarf any difference between the UK and places that have had less restrictions. (And there are places such as Utah and Sweden that have reported a lower IFR than the UK).
Also, sounds like Australia will never be able to open its borders whilst persuing this policy as, firstly, there will always be countries with a significant presence of this virus, and secondly, there will always be people who don’t have the “vaccines” – which in any case seem to be ineffective.
You might want to consider regime change…
Regime change followed by Nuremburg-style trials and even Nuremburg sentencing too for very serious crimes against humanity. Its my view that these are very serious crimes being committed here by those who are abusing their power and this must not go unpunished and with the harshest penalties imposed on those who are guilty of conducting this evil tyrannical horrorshow because if they get away with this you can be sure that this nightmare will most definitely return to haunt us again.
Do Australians ever pay any heed towhat is happening in the rest of the world? Has it ceased to exist for them, or are they labouring under delusions of catastrophe, like the lunatic father in Mosquito Coast?
Alas, it’s strictly navel-gazing stuff down here, obsessed with our own Zero Covid belly fluff of doom. So, from the get-go, no Sweden, Belarus, South Dakota or Tanzania. No Florida. No Iceland throwing in the towel on lockdowns and the job-jabs. No comparison with lockdown-heavy countries like the UK or US which have returned to some lockdown-free semblance of normality (at least for the time being). Any time our Covid elites raise their eyes it is only ever to wail about South Africa or India or whichever approved Covid horror story is currently being read to frighten the kiddies.
I suppose that, as the rest of the world don’t vote in our elections, actually learning from them wouldn’t garner any votes for our lockdown-addicted, electorally-calculating, politicians who keep getting rewarded for their sadistic policies by our masochistic voters.
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie. Cry, cry, cry.
Yep – I wouldn’t give a XXXX for their chances.
And that doesn’t even touch on martial law being imposed (but not declared) in Sydney.
See, if you don’t call it that, then it’s not that, right?
… and, as zombies continue to slather themselves and their kids in hand gunk, the underclass are wallowing in hygiene poverty:
https://www.boots.com/the-hygiene-bank/about-the-hygiene-bank
How about distributing all the remaining hand gunk to the hygiene-poor? They could have a vatful each and live cleanly ever after.
They can have my share; haven’t touched the stuff for months.
I had to tell a friend the other day to stop offering that crap to my kids. We were at a theme park and after every ride she got it out and insisted her kids slathered themselves in it, and was then trying to get my kids to do it. I said my kids dont need it thanks, I am happy for them to pick up germs to strengthen their immune systems, the way kids have been doing for thousands of years.
Well done. I just say, “kill off my immune system’s first line of defence? No thanks!” Cue those ‘he’s a looney’ looks. Well, they need thinning out anyway.
Isn’t excessive sanitation linked to allergies (and milk intolerance)?
Here is the news. Afghanis retake Afghanistan.
Pashtuns, one of 14 Afghan tribes, representing about 50% of the Afghan population, trained originally with Saudi money in religious seminaries in Pakistan, retake Afghanistan, moving across the border from their safe haven Pashtun tribal areas straddling the Afghan/Pakistan border (as a consequence of the Durand line drawn in 1893!).
The tyranny of the majority restored.
Well if you’re claiming the rest of the Afghan tribes hate Taliban rule more than US collaboration regime rule, they have a funny way of showing it, given the remarkably rapid and relatively peaceful takeover of many areas that have shown themselves perfectly capable of violent resistance in the past.
Afghanistan has rarely been peacefully unified, and doubtless won’t be now, but at least it’s under rule by Afghans who don’t need a superpower military to protect them from their own people.
Time will tell, but the fact is that the only thing that should be of concern to our government is that we as a nation are not involved in the slightest in the internal affairs of far off foreign countries.
If you personally feel responsible for the conditions of Afghans in Afghanistan, them you should raise some armed men on your own wallet and go over there to sort it out. But don’t complain if you and any local collaborators you enroll find themselves hated by the Afghans you seek to fight against, and you and they aren’t treated very nicely.
Some days I’m a bleeding heart liberal (as long as someone else’s money and blood is being sacrificed in the cause) so I get why people who think they know better and feel priviliged are tempted to go and try and fix the world. What I don’t get is what makes them think it’s going to work, given that it never really has. It’s a bit like lockdown mania, or zero covid – if only we could find the right combination of lunatic interventions, it CAN be made to work.
“It’s a bit like lockdown mania, or zero covid – if only we could find the right combination of lunatic interventions, it CAN be made to work.”
Like communism – if it didn’t work, it can’t have been real communism.
The best advice is not to trust those claiming to need to kill or steal for supposedly noble motives.
“Mind your own business” and “Charity begins at home” should be the watchwords for national policy.
“Like communism”
Indeed – like any extremist ideology – such as religious belief in the ‘free’ market as a solution to all ills.
Anybody who believes in anything as “a solution to all ills” is ignorant and naive, at best. That’s rather the point.
Well – that’s agreed, then.
The point I am making is a simple one.
The Taliban are largely ethnic Pashtuns. The Pashtun tribe are not exclusively Afghans.
So it is not correct to simply state that Afghanis have retaken Afghanistan.
The situation is a great deal more complex than that.
The scenes in Afghanistan on view right now make it perfectly clear that the Taliban takeover is, to say the least, not universally popular.
With politics in Afghanistan largely dictated by tribal identities, with at least 14 different tribes, that should not come as a surprise to anyone.
I have no idea where the rest of your comment comes from but thank you very much anyway.
“So it is not correct to simply state that Afghanis have retaken Afghanistan.
The situation is a great deal more complex than that.”
There are few brief comments that could entirely accurately and completely characterise any complex real world situation, but “Afghanis retake Afghanistan” is a pretty good summary as these things go.
Your own description is over-simplistic as well – the Taliban are not just a Pashtun tribal militia, and they do have widespread support and allies outside of the tribal base, and the fact that the post-colonial border is relatively arbitrary is hardly a surprise.
Your comments seem aimed at delegitimising the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. While that’s a perfectly arguable position, I don’t think it’s very useful in the situation we are in here, where the main political harm comes from interventionist political sentiment based on elite greed, ideological fanaticism and power-hunger, using manipulative humanitarian shroud-waving to try to justify and manufacture consent for their wars. So I prefer to point out the flaws in your position rather than focus on the truths.
Here are some words written by an Afghani, in case it may be of interest:
‘The Afghan society is a tribal society and is divided into tribes, sub tribes, clans, and families – each of them considering its genealogy equal or superior to the others. Loyalties in a tribal society are not confined to the state, but to the tribal chief, elders, clans, families and common ethnicity. Throughout the history, these tribes and sub tribes have been at odds with each other, competing for power, often in a hostile nature. This is the reason why throughout the history, Afghans have been at war and few times of peace can be found.’
‘If the United States and NATO forces leave Afghanistan without solving the Afghan issue it will be another fatal mistake and the consequence a deadly civil and ethnic war. The neighbours will once again be plunged into Afghanistan and there will be death and destruction of the Afghan State and Afghan people. The United States and NATO forces must not abandon Afghanistan in a hurry;’
Ahmad Noor ‘Baheige’ Ph. D International Relations University of Peshawar, Pakistan.
About as much interest as you would have if we were foreigners discussing UK domestic policy and I were to say “but here are the opinions of an actual British person”: and give you some self-serving shite from Neil Ferguson. He’s a “professor”, as well, after all.
Even the pantless professor will have a good grasp of the political system in his own country.
Perhaps (though I wouldn’t count on it in his case, if his political analysis is like his computer programming).
The point is that the info you get from such people is tailored to their own prejudices and goals. Why would I be interested in the opinion of a particular Afghan who wants to manipulate my country into committing crimes and expending blood and money in a foreign country in order to achieve his desired goals?
He simply confirms that tribal loyalties are stronger than nationalism in Afghanistan.
Whether that is of any interest to you is entirely a matter for you.
He asserts that, but whether and to what extent it is true, and how important it is are entirely open to question. His motivation is perfectly clear – he doesn’t even seek to hide it. It is continued colonial intervention, which he believes will advance his personal ideas (ostensibly) of what is best for Afghan society. I do not agree with that as a policy and I don’t take seriously anyone who advocates it, on anything they assert on international affairs, because we’ve seen too many lies told and too much propaganda showered upon us to promote such interventionism. And we still see these lies and the propaganda filling our media today.
He is by no means alone in asserting that:
‘Within Afghanistan there are over 40 major ethnicities who speak over 50 separate languages or dialects. Its citizens naturally identify with those who speak their language and share their culture. Their loyalty is first to their local leaders and their tribe. Identification with an abstract Afghan nation has always been fragile.’
TRADOC ‘Tribalism in Afghanistan’, a component of the Theater-Specific Individual Requirement Training Course.
It may very well be that the Taliban have an answer to the complex, disparate, nature of Afghani political elements: governing through the mosaic of local family/ethnic hierarchies. They did it before, apparently:
‘Afghanistan’s recent history has been dominated by war and central control. But this pattern is relatively recent. For instance, during the reigns of Mohammed Zahir Shah (1933-1973), and the Taliban (1996-2001), central authorities ceded significant power to tribal leaders.
Part of the recipe for stability [during Zahir Shah’s tenure] was a competent, legitimate central government that had the ability to establish order in urban areas of the country … and a tacit agreement with local tribes, subtribes, and clans in rural areas of the country,” Jones says. “Finding some medium between the two is what has kept Afghanistan stable in its stable periods.’
Council On Foreign Relations
Council On Foreign Relations
LOL!
That said, it’s correct to say that the answer for Afghanistan is for Afghans – such as the Taliban – to try to find how to balance the conflicting issues there.
Having a superpower clumping in and trying to remodel Afghan society into something its own social fanatics regard as acceptable to their particular cultural zealotries is hardly a recipe for peace. That’s what both the Soviets and the Yanks tried, and it didn’t work well for either.
So, let’s butt out, stop trying to delegitimise the new rulers, and let’s see if they can find a way to muddle along.
In other words, let’s mind our own business, and focus on addressing the beams in our own societies’ eyes before we try to operate on the eyes of others’.
You think that will catch on?
‘Every Communist must grasp the truth; “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
“Problems of War and Strategy” (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.
Well if you believe that making Afghan society safe for gays and women is necessary for our military security, I’ve got some bad news for you…..
Let’s say that we decided it was the right thing to do, not for military reasons but humanitarian. I’m not saying it is – I tend to think the bar should be set pretty high before you invade and more or less permanently occupy another country. But let’s assume, for now. As I posted earlier – we simply fail anyway. The only alternative to leaving them to get on with it, is to stay there permanently, acting as policeman. But I tend to think that, like lockdowns, it’s better to oppose on principle.
“But I tend to think that, like lockdowns, it’s better to oppose on principle.”
Yes, that was my conclusion.
As with our point a while back that “if we allow governments to do things in an emergency, there will always be emergencies.”
Similarly, if we allow “humanitarian” military intervention in the event of humanitarian crisis, such crises will constantly appear in places the elites want us to attack.
Thank you.
Those who know me are now rolling around helplessly on the floor clutching their ribs……
A good summary, written earlier this year: ‘As this last case indicates, it would be wrong to see Taliban fighters simply as religiously inspired, unusually disciplined tribal rebels. In their own way, they also see themselves as inheritors of the Pashtun royal statebuilding tradition in Afghanistan (much though they despise the memory of the decadent and westernised monarchy). This, as well as sheer opportunism, helped them in the past to gain some surprising recruits even among former Pashtun-communist officers and officials. These patterns, together with the constant contacts and conversations taking place between members of the government and Taliban fighters who, though ostensibly on opposite sides, belong to the same Pashtun tribes, suggest that after the US withdrawal, the collapse of the Afghan state in the Pashtun areas may at some point happen not just very quickly, but also quite peacefully, as Pashtun soldiers and police simply go home, while their commanders flee or make their own deals with the Taliban. This, after all, is very much what happened both when the communist state collapsed in 1992 and the mujahideen took over, and as the Taliban swept through the Pashtun areas in 1994–96 and displaced the mujahideen warlords. To reconcile… Read more »
Yes, I wouldn’t disagree with the broad thrust of Lieven’s piece there, which seems pretty much in line with what I’ve been saying here.
I suspect the Taliban might have their own ideas as to what is required to amount to “sufficient concessions to cultural modernity, at least in the city of Kabul, to retain enough modern technocrats to make the Afghan state work and to administer international aid“.
But my interest in this is purely academic – the well-being of Afghans in Afghanistan is simply no more business of mine (or yours) than the running of my country is the business of islamist foreigners.
My main concern is trying to rein in the interventionists in my own country and its US hegemon from trying to whip up support for ongoing active destabilisation of that country, with a view to a future return or bombings
It is very much not in line with what you have been saying. The Taliban are ‘not a monolithically Pashtun force’ but ‘its leadership is still overwhelmingly Pashtun and seen as such by most of the other peoples’ They are, of course, Afghanis but my very simple original point was that a Taliban takeover is a Pashtun takeover. They certainly do not represent the entire Afghan people. A Taliban government will have achieved political power in Afghanistan only in the sense of Mao, quoted above. That may change, but it may not: ‘…..to achieve a stable and lasting hegemony over Afghanistan as a whole, the Taliban would have to ‘……. reach an accommodation with Afghanistan’s other main ethnic groups – Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks – guaranteeing them autonomy and safety in their own areas.’ You have no idea what my business is so I would be grateful if you would speak only for yourself. The intervention in Afghanistan would have been justified had it confined itself to the narrow aim of removing Afghanistan from the role of safe haven for international terrorism and ceased once that aim had been achieved. Interventionism has its place: The Falklands, the liberation of Kuwait, particularly… Read more »
“It is very much not in line with what you have been saying.” I disagree. The differences are merely of emphasis. As indeed you yourself went on to show. “a Taliban takeover is a Pashtun takeover. They certainly do not represent the entire Afghan people. “ The pashtun have always been the dominant group in Afghanistan. For obvious reasons. You seem to have some naive fantasy here of a government “representing everyone”. Such a thing is a polite fiction here, it’s pure fantasy in a place like Afghanistan. But that doesn’t mean that governments can’t have legitimacy, any more than the governments of Britain prior to mass democracy (which did not come about until after WW1) were illegitimate. “You have no idea what my business is so I would be grateful if you would speak only for yourself.” I have no idea what your work is. But if you are British then the internal affairs of Afghanistan are no business of yours, even if you might have work interests there. I prefer foreigners to keep their noses out of my country’s affairs. Your views might be different on that, but there are certainly a lot of hypocrites around on this score.… Read more »
If the internal affairs of Afghanistan result in the harbouring of international terrorists that mount attacks on either ourselves or our allies then that is certainly my business as a British citizen. My M.P., who represents me, will have to vote in parliament on my behalf regarding any necessary actions and I will judge him on his performance at the next election.
I’m not sure you have really quite got the hang of interventionism.
The Falklands, if only from an Argentinian perspective, the liberation of Kuwait, the counter insurgency in Oman, British support for the government of Sierra Leone, were all interventionist; successful foreign policy interventions:
‘Interventionism: the policy or practice of a government influencing the economy of its own country, or of becoming involved in the affairs of other countries.’
The Falklands was a simple matter of direct military defence against an act of military aggression. Nothing “interventionist” about it in the proper meaning of that term. The term is better applied to the attack on Iraq in collective defence of Kuwait. That’s the only other arguably just war we have engaged in since the Falklands. “If the internal affairs of Afghanistan result in the harbouring of international terrorists that mount attacks on either ourselves or our allies then that is certainly my business as a British citizen. My M.P., who represents me, will have to vote in parliament on my behalf regarding any necessary actions and I will judge him on his performance at the next election.” If there is genuine “harbouring of international terrorists that mount attacks etc”, then it is no longer internal affairs, by definition. But this is pure pretext. There are plenty of places where such international terrorists gather that are more congenial to them than Afghanistan, for sure, but we won’t be attacking Pakistan or Saudi Arabia any time soon, nor occupying the areas in Syria and Libya that are most involved in such. If you think Afghanistan is a problem, the first thing… Read more »
You definitely haven’t got the hang of interventionism. Argentina considers Las Islas Malvinas as Argentinian territory and consequently regards the British task force sent to recover the islands for Britain as an example of colonialist interventionism of the worst kind. To state ‘If there is genuine “harbouring of international terrorists that mount attacks etc”, then it is no longer internal affairs’ is just plain silly. It is the harbouring, provision of safe haven, that is very much an internal affair, taking place, as it obviously does, within Afghan borders. It is not a question of where international terrorists gather, it is, rather, a question of where they train for specific terrorist attacks. ‘Bin Ladin built over the course of a decade a dynamic and lethal organization. He built an infrastructure and organization in Afghanistan that could attract, train, and use recruits against ever more ambitious targets.’ https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.htm I would be most grateful if you would not misrepresent my position. I have no idea whether Afghanistan is now likely to be ‘a problem’ nor have I ever claimed that it is likely to be a ‘problem’. Even the experts haven’t worked that one out yet: ‘“If the Taliban of 2021 are… Read more »
Mainstream sources concerning elite military intervention targets are about as trustworthy as mainstream official sources on covid, and for similar reasons, but I’m not debating whether or not tribal loyalty is important in Afghanistan – it’s simply not the issue here. . The reality is that tribal loyalty is one part of the issues in Afghanistan, and there are plenty of Afghans whose loyalty is not tribal, and plenty of inter-tribal connections.
But the relevant point here is that it is simply incorrect to try to argue as you do that the Taliban is just a Pashtun tribal militia imposing its rule over the other tribes. If they were just that they would never have been able to do what they have just done. They have clear allegiance or support from numerous other groups in Afghanistan (always have, to varying extents).
Regardless, they are still “Afghans retaking Afghanistan” compared to the US collaboration regime they are replacing. To what extent they are or are not “nice people” is not relevant to that.
You are entitled, of course, to your view.
It is not one that I share
A civilised position on your part, sadly becoming ever scarcer in modern US sphere societies.
“Mainstream sources …. are about as trustworthy as mainstream official sources on covid”
Exactly (I’ve left out the qualification).
What I’ve learned is that the putative rationalisations for intervention have, likewise, to be treated with the utmost scepticism and, as with Covid, conceal a range of less savoury motivations from unsavoury quarters.
It’s rarely about humanitarian impulses at root, even if its sold on that basis.
Just like Covid.
“if the United States and NATO forces leave Afghanistan without solving the Afghan issue”
Leaving aside the question of whether we should have been there in the first place, isn’t it pretty obvious that the issue cannot be solved by US and NATO forces? I mean, I suppose if they stayed there another few decades, maybe we’d work out the magic formula, but at what point do you give up?
The lessons of history are pretty clear regarding Afghanistan.
Any intervention should have had a clear, closely defined, mission and very tight, limited, timeframe.
Well, I think 20-odd years later that boat has been missed
Also if your mission is, to quote the Prod, “solving the Afghan issue”, I’m not sure that’s compatible with a limited timeframe, or a closely defined mission (solving to whose satisfaction?).
Yes.
Yeah, really good news for Afghan women.
Yet another failure by outsiders to tame Afghanistan. Beijing Bidden still made a mess of it though. And apparently contradicted comments he made years ago about nation-building.
Next step in plans to govern use of digital identities revealed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-step-in-plans-to-govern-use-of-digital-identities-revealed–2
This is the scariest thing I’ve read in a long time. Their plans are already quite advanced and this will be a ‘thing’ unless we strongly resist it or unless there is serious opposition to it in parliament – which is doubtful. Digital IDs being needed just to live a life. The bland, quite upbeat language used in their description is the language of a new type of tyranny – something that seems reasonable on the surface to anyone who glances at it in passing but we know that THIS is the screw.
Hydrogen the future, really? How much energy is required to generate hydrogen from water? How much energy do you get back? How is it going to be stored? What happens if there’s a fire? A collision between a hydrogen powered vehicle and an electric vehicle, lithium plus hydrogen plus oxygen plus water.
As I recall from my physics days I think the whole hydrogen generation / fuel cell electricity generation cycle is about 85% efficient.
I think about 80% splitting water into hydrogen then 50% getting the hydrogen back to electricity (thats if you dont just burn the hydrogen for heat)
a big loss, but you can store hydrogen
“you can store hydrogen“
Best to do so carefully, though (I suppose the same is true of petrol etc).
its not the most dangerous gas to store because its so volatile – it leaves quickly. but it takes up a lost more space than methane.
best stored in places similar to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_(facility) rather than balloons 😉
Jabs Until 2024 – The conspiracy theorist’s got it right yet again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUdbGAMEZEQ
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Round Up is becoming increasingly thin gruel as the focus on Covid blurs and the number of substantial or novel data-focused articles declines. Pity.
I don’t know whether it’s related or not but TY in his last podcast with Delingpole said he’d given up editing the News Roundup and passed the job to Michael Curzon.
I was thinking the same thing. To be fair, it’s holiday season and other than the vaccine insanity we’re in a holding pattern wrt covid in the UK, until the autumn and winter comes and we find out which way the government will jump as “cases” rise (or even as they don’t). I think the general focus for the DS now should be how to build an opposition to the coronamadness, which will be a long term project.
Biden’s America is an ‘incompetently run dystopia’ – Dr Dom Green of The Spectator US
The hard truth that is going to drive political and cultural developments in the US sphere over the next few years.
This is essentially another look at the same issues as are raised by Green, from a slightly different perspective and in another part of the US sphere.
And here’s Tucker Carlson discussing the same basic issues, in excoriating and bitterly hilarious terms:
Tucker: We are led by buffoons, everything they touch turns to chaos
The dystopian incompetence preceded Biden.
Of course, as Green points out. The problem is a dysfunctional and bipartisan political and cultural leftist elite that has seized the controls in the US sphere and won’t let go of them. Biden is just a senile figurehead. He most likely can’t get dressed without help, let alone run a country.
French vaccine expert Professor Christian Perronne. The vaccinated are the danger.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1427125645927084036
The Times investigation is framing for “We would have locked down harder and earlier if China wasn’t such a big bad liar”
So everyone gets off and we have a bogeyman over there to point at.
As someone mentioned, the round-up is getting less covid/lockdown-et-al related, and the covid/lockdown-et-al stories are getting more to be just news from media (often even without sarcastic comment next to them). So, sometime it’s worthy to look at comments. But comments not related to covid/lockdown-et-al and the corresponding likes/dislikes (maybe someone is artificially pumping them with TOR or somehow else) are getting unbearable (even more so than covidmania). I think I’d rather live in a covidmania world forever than the world preferred by most people in the comment section (some combination of nationalisms, religious and other conservatisms, isolationism, anti-globalism, etc.). There are some interesting links about skepticism towards climate change but another website should be set for that, not merged with lockdown skepticism. There are similarities but the issues are different enough. As for the wokeism, it can be an annoying phenomena at times but the critic of it should never have been merged with anti-lockdown analysis and proclaimed that pro-lockdown and pro-woke are of the same origin and severity. It was fair to change the name to Daily Sceptic to reflect the change in topic. But still the anti-wokeism should have never been a part of this website. Of… Read more »
I think people here in the past have presented decent arguments for why wokeism and climate change are relevant. I agree the defeating the Big Lie that covid was exceptional should be the priority, but it didn’t happen in a vacuum and it won’t suddenly go away without us understanding how we got here.
I’ve no idea what world is preferred by most people in the comment section. Some people express views in that regard, many others don’t, and those that do have a variety of views. Possibly the most vocal are people you disagree with. I don’t think you’d really rather live in a covidmania world than a world where, in general, people have some respect for the truth and rationality, individual liberty and freedom of speech and choice.
There are various anti-lockdown subreddits, most of which have a list of dos and don’ts about what to post as long as your arm.
“I’ve no idea what world is preferred by most people in the comment section.”
Really? Seems pretty clear to me:
A world without authoritarian psychopaths dictating what we can and can’t do based on lies to re-structure the world the way they think they have a right to.
They have no right, and we don’t have to put up with this shit.
Well, yes, good point. I guess, referring back to Milos, I was talking about this : “the world preferred by most people in the comment section (some combination of nationalisms, religious and other conservatisms, isolationism, anti-globalism, etc.).” which I didn’t think was an accurate summary, and in any case I would argue that if those isms respect personal freedom and don’t result in, as you say, authoritarian psychopaths running the show, then so what?
Although guilty myself of being side-tracked, I agree. Climate and ‘wokeism’ are different issues, and the ‘Big Conspiracy’ linking all is a distracting mirage, full of contradiction.
The clear priority has to be the use of Covid as a coup.
NEW (VAX & BLOOD) MICROSCOPE ANALYSIS [BY INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS; LAWYERS & DOCTOR]
Real scientific research has now become a renegade act.
Comprehensive VAERS data analysis in PDF presentation format by french statistician of 20+ years Christine Cotton.
Thank you very much for posting this! 🙂
INFANTILISATION OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
I have taken a 75 mg dispersible aspirin tablet (on the advice of a doctor) every day for almost 25 years.
I went into our local Boots chemist today to buy a pack ( £1.79 per hundred), I said “at that price, I will have 2 packs, please”.
I was told in no uncertain terms that; no, I couldn’t because it was against the rules, by the pharmacist who probably wasn’t even 25 (see above).
What do “the rules” think that I was going to do?, become a pusher of dispersible aspirin at the local pensioners club?
Is it any wonder that our country has turned into a flock of compliant sheep?
What next? being told how to walk?
“What next? being told how to walk?“
I’m shocked that you make light of the very real hazards involved in acquiring the vital life skill of walking!
Don’t you care about those injured and killed in accidents while acquiring the necessary skills? Are you a hater who wants disabled people who find walking difficult to suffer?You’re probably a racist as well.
I’m contacting the site owners now to make sure you are prevented from spreading your hate-filled, right wing extremist fascism on this site!
“What do “the rules” think that I was going to do?, become a pusher of dispersible aspirin at the local pensioners club?“
Nanny state is responsible for your well-being. Surely you wouldn’t expect a responsible nanny to let her charges have access to potentially dangerous amounts of a medical drug?
Well said.
I will now go away and hide from the ( Zero covid) world.
Is there really a limit on the number of aspirins you can buy at once? It isn’t just Boots limiting sales, or a restriction for a particular offer?
I mean, the fact that it’s credible enough that I need to ask pretty much confirms your general point about our society…
At the moment I just can’t see a way out of the present situation, as the majority of the population seem perfectly happy to carry on with varying degrees of lockdown for ever.
In the whole of my 72 years, I have never felt so pessimistic.
No sign of a Churchill or a Cromwell on the horizon either.
Well, that’s been pretty much my view since the 1990s. Admittedly the covid panic has represented a sharp acceleration in the processes involved…
I believe there are legal restrictions on all painkillers but Boots go way over the top.
They’re afraid you might coimmit suicide. While pushing dangerous “vaccines” with the other hand.
My doctor prescribed co-codamol for an injury. It wasn’t quite better so I tried to buy some in Boots. Ye gods! you’d think I had asked if I could rape their babies.
In the end I got some from the proper pharmacy.
Tried buying paracetamol in the supermarket recently? You can only buy one pack of six or so and need an age check.
Some of these restrictions are The Law but IMO Boots just make stuff up. Entertaining how when they were the only pharmacy in town they were packed but when a proper pharmacy opened up they are like the Marie Celeste.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct with the Marie Celeste comparison.