I have been trying for the last few days to discover a coherent logic towards my feelings on man’s relationship with his environment. This is proving not to be simple.
The process started when I heard on World Service radio a gentleman from the International Panel on Climate Change discussing their latest report. As you know, I tend to accept the established opinion on climate change, and rather take the view that if all our industrial activity were not affecting the atmosphere, that would be strange.
But what struck me was that the gentleman said that a pause in warming for the last fifteen years was not significant, as fifteen years was a blip in processes that last over millennia.
Well, that would certainly be very true if you are considering natural climate change. But we are not – we are considering man-made climate change. In terms of the period in which the scale of man’s industrial activity has been having a significant impact on the environment, surely fifteen years is a pretty important percentage of that period? Especially as you might naturally imagine the process to be cumulative – fifteen years at the start when nothing much happened would be more explicable.
Having tucked away that doubt, I started to try to think deeper. Man is, of course, himself a part of nature. Anything man does on this planet is natural to this planet. I do not take the view man should not change his environment – otherwise I should not be sitting in a house. The question is rather, are we inadvertently making changes to the environment to our own long term detriment?
That rejection of what you might call the Gaia principle – that the environmental status quo is an end in itself – has ramifications. It is hard to conceptualise our relationship with gases or soil, but easier in terms of animals. I am not a vegetarian – I am quite happy that we farm and eat cattle, for example – and you might argue that the cattle are pretty successful themselves, symbiotic survivors of a kind. Do I think other species have a value in themselves? Is there any harm in killing off a species of insect, other than the fact that biodiversity may be reduced in ways that remove potential future advantages to man, or there may be knock on consequences we know not of that damage man somehow? I am not quite sure, but in general I seem in practice to take the view that exploitation of other species and substantial distortion of prior ecological balance to suit men’s needs is fine, so presumably the odd extinction is fine too, unless it damages man long term.
I strongly disapprove of hurting animals for sport, and want to see them have the best quality of life possible, preferably wild. But I like to eat and wear them. I am not quite sure why it is OK to wear animal skin on our feet or carry it as a bag, but not to wear “fur”. What is the difference, other than that leather has had the hair systematically rubbed off as part of the process of making it? A trivial issue, but one that obviously relates to the deeper questions.
Yes I draw a distinction between animals which are intelligent and those which are not. I would not eat whale or dolphin. But this does not seem entirely logical – animal intelligence and sensibility is evidently a continuum. Many animals mourn, for example. The BBC World Service radio (my main contact with the outside world at present – I have just today found my very, very weak internet connection just about works if I try it at 5am) informed me a couple of days ago that orang-utans have the ability to think forward and tell others where they will be the next day. Why cattle and fish are daft enough to eat is hard to justify.
I quite appreciate the disbenefits to man of radically changing his environment, even if it could be done without long term risk to his existence – the loss of beauty, of connection to seasons and forms of behaviour with which we evolved. But I regard those as important only as losses to man, not because nature is important intrinsically. In short, if I thought higher seas, no polar bears and no glaciers would not hurt man particularly, I don’t suppose I would have much to say against it. I fear the potential repercussions are too dangerous to man. At base, I don’t actually care about a polar bear.
“Dear John, thanks. I am also quite interested to know the sources for the claim that the ‘Rothschilds’ (or, one presumes, some of them) funded either Stalin or the Russian revolution (presumably this means Lenin?). I did briefly click on your link but it seemed not quite impartial. Fred also seemed to agree, so sources from him would be welcome too.”
I don’t know about the Rothchilds though it wouldn’t surprise me if they hadn’t lent money to both sides in the conflict. Trotsky went off to New York and left with a lot of Zionist gold, that’s a matter of historical record. The deal was that Russia would create a Jewish homeland like Israel, which they did at Birobidzhan.
Pillar of Cloud November 2012 – Israel attack on Gaza
BBC – ‘We were wrong to hide commentator’s pro-Israel credentials.’
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1380918639.html
The commentator was Jonathan Sacerdoti.
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/who_is_jonathan_sacerdoti_the_bbcs_go_to_man_on_gaza
You can only access his Twitter if you are a confirmed follower!
https://twitter.com/jonsac
“Trotsky went off to New York and left with a lot of Zionist gold, that’s a matter of historical record. The deal was that Russia would create a Jewish homeland like Israel, which they did at Birobidzhan.”
And what is the source for this historical record – you may see this and other similar claims on the usual conspiracy/anti semitic websites who are well aware of their heroes dictum that a lie repeated often enough becomes a fact – but where is this confirmed by a neutral source? My guess is that for obvious reason the Bolsheviks would have tried to keep the source of their finances pretty secret – and of course it is in the space of secrecy and partial facts that the conspirators can move in with a fabricated version of events which suits their prejudices.
“And what is the source for this historical record”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff
Fred
That article on Wikipedia makes no reference to gold being provided to Trotsky – all it says is that “He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia from the money markets of the United States”. Given that there were many enemies of Russia after the anti-Jewish Pogroms he could have been providing finance to any number of bodies – where is the link to Trotsky and the Bolsheviks or backup to the assertion that this was part of a deal to create a Jewish homeland (which incidentally didn’t happen until Trotsky fell out of favour in the Soviet Union over 10 years later – and when it was created by Stalin was more to do with his nationalities policy rather than any commitment to Zionism). That Schiff was not a friend of the pre revolutionary Russian government because of its treatment of the Jews in the pogroms is not in doubt – but to conflate this into a Zionist plot to put the Bolsheviks in power really appears to be little more than the usual conspiracy theories (where there is plenty histroical support for the liars being caught out again and again).
“That article on Wikipedia makes no reference to gold being provided to Trotsky”
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=7.3
Fred
An extract from a website that advertises the following
“Final Warning: A History of the New World Order
Illuminism and the master plan for world domination
— by: David Allen Rivera, 1994,”
and in which the various assertions made are unsourced, hardly counts as a neutral source or one that is consistent with acceptable historical methods – please try harder and don’t be so easily taken in.
Fred
Might I suggest that you take a look at the news page on the site you linked to and then tell me with a straight face that it isn’t just a haunt for racists and conspiracy theorists.
Someone on one of Craig’s blogs posted something which resulted in me discovering about the writings of the former Canadian diplomat Peter Dale Scott & am now reading his 2008 book on JFK and the deep politics of law, which contains some curious comparisons with certain more recent events in NY. Very interesting , not least for the same reason that Craig’s books are interesting because of their former status as diplomats. Of course that doesn’t make him right or error free, but given alternate news is so difficult to fathom then Scott looks a worthwhile read. I would like to know a bit more about him and how it came about that he stopped being a diplomat and turned to writing his critical books?
Fred:
Is there any mention of the incident you describe in a more reliable source – eg, Isaac Deutscher’s biography of Trotsky?
Fedup, this is most odd; it’s as if you don’t want there to be peace between these two nations. I find that you are actively arguing against it, but I’ve no idea why.
Many moons ago, either you or Passerby hinted that you would support the arming of the Palestinians. Is a war between the two nations, dragging in various allies on both sides, and killing unarmed combatants on both sides, really what you want?
I would not agree to Israel being called ‘a nation’. It has no boundaries and knows no law(s).
There is a conflict – they don’t whether they are Israelis or Jewish according to a court ruling.
‘[..]
In its 26-page ruling, the court explained it did not have the authority to determine ethnicity or statehood.
In an editorial, the Haaretz newspaper described the move as a “defeat for Israeliness.”‘
[..]
The court said that any recognition of Israeli nationality would have “weighty implications” on the state of Israel and endanger Israel’s founding principle: To be a Jewish state for the Jewish people, the Associated Press news agency said.
Jerusalem court rejects Israel nationality petition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24405715
Jon 5 Oct, 2013 – 12:16 pm
“Is a war between the two nations, dragging in various allies on both sides, and killing unarmed combatants on both sides, really what you want?”
If one side killing the other unchallenged is the only alternative then maybe yes. If the palestians want guns who are we to say no, keep on dying cause war is bad.
Empires never give up power. The oppressed must always take it back. Come on jon your thinking seems to condemn any freedom fighter who takes up arms.
Mary, It is not difficult for a new born nation to survive and the odds are stacked against it. Shlomo Sands’ The Invention of the Jewish People is a brave and intelligent book. It has a good intro on this subject, on how after, printing presses made religion accesible and thereby religion (in Latin etc.) lost its usefulness as a tool to control power masses, elites made use of Nationalism and Nations to coerce. Nations need myths, PR, spin and either a big parent to guard them, or they have to be exceptionally tough to survive. Israel has been very intelligent and very tough. Of course babies survive by gurgling and making people love them. I am not supporting Israel – its just an observation.
On the “missing cheque” story: Nicholas Hagger tells the story in his entertaining conspiracy theory book The Secret History of the West, but one of the problems with that book is his use of “sources”. The book positions all Western History around a dispute amongst freemasons! Its ridiculous except that its obvious that in (18 and (19 elites really liked hanging out in masonic societies and there was a lot going on both religiously, politically, intellectually and no doubt much skullduggery. A great read if your designing computer games.
The only thing that ends conflicts, apart from one side being pounded into nothing, is dialogue. That’s what ended apartheid. “If the Palestinians want guns”….the Palestinians would need a lot more than guns. And what then? It’s worked out really well for Syria, hasn’t it? No surprise that in the Maze IRA killers and UDF killers found they actually had a lot in common. Stupid stupid stupid.
Jon said;
Could it be even more odd than the current turkey shoot in the occupied territories, ie most of Palestine? Palestinians have been under a constant barrage of military attacks for the last seventy years. These attacks have been “explained away” as the “retaliation against terrorism”. Fact is French resistance in WWII, were also considered “terrorists”.
Needless to point out, the group think/cognitive dissonance with hypocrisy abound sanctions the Palestinians right to fight for their homeland, ie strips their right as citizens of a country under attack and occupation from resisting such an occupation.
Odd isn’t it, that it is an accepted fact that Palestinians can do the dying and getting blown apart, and ziofuckwits can remain immune form any kind of retaliation, and do the killing and indulge in target practice. There again, that is the way the dice is loaded, and even remotest notions of equal rights is abhorrent to say the least. Of course all in best possible taste preventing; “killing unarmed combatants on both sides” don’t you agree it should read: “killing unarmed combatants on the other side”?
President Obama said that “America is exceptional” because it stands up not only for its own “narrow self interest, but for the interests of all.
‘Exceptional’ in this case must mean aberrant and abnormal in that over period of time called the ‘war on terror’ the American administration has smashed or threatened to smash sovereign nations in the ‘interest’ of a false belief in humanity.
The humane interest of other destitute, oppressed and tyrannised people can be better served with feeling emotion and perception such as the Palestinian residents next to the illegal Immanuel and Eli settlements in the West Bank who are subjected to violence, provocation and murder, watching as their livelihoods growing olive and almond tree torched and burnt to the ground.
The rising number and severity of “continuous settler violence and deliberate provocations against Palestinian civilians,” has focused intention.
EU representatives are biting their nails, in a stew and totally tied up in knots, preventing delivering the perpetrators to justice.
That must mean ‘humanitarian’ intervention must become the responsibility for a ‘promised land’ unbounded Britain to intervene now! without the need for missiles or bombs.
Intent means concentrating thought and that power can be fixed and directed at Israel and Mr Netanyahu by deciding to use your mind here:
http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/PrimeMinister/Pages/ContactUs.aspx
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politics/weather-service-cryptic-message/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Btw, surprisingly my phone seems to have shutdown in sympathy with US Federal workers. Had to restore the bloody thing from an old backup.
@resident dissident,4 Oct, 2013,11:40pm wrote:
“Anti- semitism: discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews. That is what I mean by anti-semitism and I’m afraid you and Hafon have it in bucketloads. It doesn’t mean that you cannot have philosophical arguments about Jewish or other religous beliefs – it is when you start discrimination against people on the basis of such beliefs that it becomes anti-semitism and if you didn’t notice Jewish people have had rather a lot of that in their history – regardless of whether they were Zionists and belived in a separate state fro Jewish people. The first pogrom in the UK was back in
You claim that the term Jew was originated until the late 18th century is of course like most other things you say complete hogwash – e.g. The Statute of the Jewry was issued by Edward I of England in 1275 and perhaps you should look at the text of the Merchant of Venice written in 1600 http://shakespeare.mit.edu/merchant/full.html
Why do your lies always seem to have the same target?? In future might I suggest you do a little more research before making you outlandish claims”
…You obviously didn’t read my post properly Resident Dissident. I have no dog in this fight,unlike yourself I presume. Like I have tried to explain twice, ‘Semite/Semitic’ does not mean Jewish or Israeli. So even if I was the idiotic thing that you desperately try to accuse me and seemingly everyone else that you disagree with of, throwing the non sensical oxymoronic ‘anti semitic’ jibe around like you are doing doesn’t make sense. This tired technique just doesn’t work anymore I’m afraid. I would seriously advice you to give it up. The jig is up, as the ADL and its many associates knows. To me, Michael Rifkind ‘friend of Israel’ trying to sell an illegal attack on Syria in the House of Commons with all the fake bluster he could manage, blatantly misrepresenting the truth based on unfounded ‘open source’ evidence, seemed like a very definite turning point. Everyone in that chamber listening to him knew that the buffoon was lying and the public just wasn’t buying it anymore. He made himself and the people he represents look very very stupid-it was a bridge too far. The trick stopped working.
The people of modern Israel deserve better that this, whether they define themselves as Jews or not. Dissenting voices against against the minority religious and political extremism at the Israeli power base need more coverage not less. I would encourage you to drop your childish accusations and encourage more of the true voice of Israelis and people of Jewish faith to be heard if you genuinely want to be of help
On a similar note – everyone with a basic grasp of history surely knows that Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution and that the people behind Wall street and the City of London have been at it funding ‘both sides’ for time immemorial? Isn’t this common knowledge on this blog yet!?
Greenpeace protests worldwide for release of activists held in Russia
‘From Hong Kong’s harbour to London and Toronto, supporters of Captain Pete Wilcox and his crew of imprisoned Greenpeace activists are sending a message to Russia today: “Free the Arctic 30.”
Piracy charges facing 30 people after last month’s oil drilling protest targeting a rig owned by Russia’s state-controlled company Gazprom have sparked outrage worldwide, including Down Under.The group includes citizens of 18 nations including an Australian. The country’s foreign minister has already broached the matter with Russia.’
/..
http://www.euronews.com/2013/10/05/greenpeace-protests-worldwide-for-release-of-activists-held-in-russia/
The local Palestinians in Al Bireh fear that the closure of this rubbish tip heralds the expansion of the illegal settlement on the hill above. Settlements are invariably built on heights.
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2013/10/israel-dumps-palestinian-rubbish-depot-2013105115743173478.html
Video report 2 mins.
The history of the illegal Israeli settlement that is called Psagot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psagot
Phil, not at all, but I’ll get back to you on that – I really want to know what Fedup/Passerby are saying at the mo.
Fedup/Passerby,
In the usual case, I read your posts, and learn very little of what you actually mean. For example, what do you mean by this?
Do you mean that, given the deaths of many Palestinian civilians in the conflict (running I believe at around 100 to every Israeli death), you would support the reversal of this situation? Do you believe it would be a good thing to have 100 Israelis die for every Palestinian death, perhaps for the next 60 years? Would that be the retaliation you both seek?
A simple yes or no might suffice here, I think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/10353781/Old-sick-or-disabled-Dutch-people-will-be-asked-to-work-in-return-for-care.html
Chris Jones (4:20pm):
Just on two points of fact:
1. “..throwing the non sensical oxymoronic ‘anti semitic’ jibe around..”
Err, “anti-semitic” is not an oxymoron. Please check out the meaning of the word oxymoron before repeating.
2. “To me, Michael Rifkind ‘friend of Israel’..”
Err, I think you might have meant ‘Malcolm Rifkind’? Please check out names before posting.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906704579113661593684356.html
“I would not agree to Israel being called ‘a nation’. It has no boundaries and knows no law(s).”
Your agreement is of no relevance whatsover – in terms of current international law and political reality Israel is very clearly a nation – like it or not that has to be the starting point for any sensible way forward. You may very clearly want to reach to other defined destination, which you always very carefully avoid identifying – but now you appear to be disagreeing with the starting point. We know what A is already – could you please define B and how you think we should get there?
Chris Jones
I have clearly defined what I and most dictionaries define as anti-semitic. You can redefine the term as meanining a pink hippotamus or whatever you wish,
Rather than bothering me with your inane analysis and unsupported assertions might I suggest you read the Shakespeare I pointed you to – and his other works as well rather than frequenting the rather dodgy “anti-semitic” websites where you currently play.
As far as I’m concerned this conversation is now at an end.
Resident Dissident (6:21pm)
I share your unease when I read people asserting that Israel is not a nation because such assertions could be construed as a first step to saying that Israel is not a state – the further step being that the State of Israel has no right to exist and should therefore be done away with. A historical precedent lies in the assertions of various political and military figures in post-WW1 Germany that the newly reconstituted Polish state was an unacceptable aberation and had no right to exist – assertions to which practical effect was given in 1939/40. I hope the poster to whom you referred wasn’t implying something similar.
“$5.3 trillion-a-day”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/swiss-regulator-probes-alleged-foreign-exchange-manipulation.html