A particularly mendacious lie by Danny Alexander puts the institutional start-up costs of Scottish Independence at £1.5 billion. That is a cool half billion pounds cheaper than Scotland’s share of the costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars, even on the Westminster government’s blatant under-estimate of the war costs.
So Scotland can afford criminal invasions killing hundreds of thousands to ‘bring freedom’, but cannot afford the smaller cost of its own freedom!!!
The £1.5 billion estimate is mendacious in two ways. Firstly, it is a simple recycling of a Canadian lie at the time of the Quebec independence referendum, apportioning with no argument 1% of GDP to startup costs.
Secondly, as nearly all the money will be spent in Scotland it is not a loss at all, but actually an increase to GDP, as any but the most nutty neo-con would be forced to acknowledge. And it would be the precursor of government money spent annually in Scotland rather than England for ever thereafter.
Thankfully Alexander won’t have a job much longer – and if he thinks a penny of Scottish public spending is going in future to support his huge arse and deceitful mouth, he is very wrong.
Mr Scorgie
“…adult abuse including the male genital mutilation conventional within the Muslim and Jewish religions.”
______________________
Are you seriously comparing female genital mutilation – which has no backing in scripture and which has the effect of killing later sexual pleasure for the women concerned – with male cirumcision which does have backing in scripture and which, if what one hears is to be believed, makes the circumcised man a better cocksman?
Of course you aren’t, Doug.
But you do keep coming up with male circumcision every time FGM is mentioned on here.
The conclusion must therefore be that either
(1) for whatever dark reason, you approve of FGM or
(2) you use the topic to deliver what you believe to be a swift kick against the Jews.
Deplorable as both of those reasons are, I nevertheless hope it’s the second one in your case, Doug.
Please enlighten us, Doug.
Garcia’s quick. Should have put him on the Iraq War Inquiry.
Qatar World Cup 2022: Investigator nears probe conclusion
Fifa investigator and New York lawyer Michael Garcia plans to complete his probe of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bidding process by 9 June.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27659828
He doing it again! Obsessed with the word.
He arrived here in November 2012 on the Savile and the Low Hanging Fruit thread. Why that one?
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/11/savile-and-the-low-hanging-fruit/
After I had put up a photo of Hague and Savile he said
‘Habbakuk
2 Nov, 2012 – 9:45 pm
Well done, Mary, always vigilant, aren’t you.
But a bit to touchy and self-righteous for my taste.
BTW, how’s your garden getting on, and the hens (or was it cocks)?’
Several posters complained about the content of that post.
He was Habbakuk at the start and then became Habbabkuk later in the thread when I had pointed out that Habbakuk was a Hebrew Old Testament prophet.
Downhill all the way since then.
The photo of the grinning Hague and leering Savile. Very topical in the light of today’s news about the extent of Savile’s crimes against children some as young as 2 years of age. Sa Vile.
http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/487313_203664619767875_598847032_n.jpg
Bathroom curiosity for the sexually immature leads to questions about turds and genitalia, Mary.
NO posts for 9 days and the last one has had comments closed for 4 days. They sure are busy. Doing what, I don’t know.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/
Ben
“…leads to questions about turds and genitalia,..”
________________
May I just point out, Ben, that
1/. it’s you who keeps using the word “turd” (latterly as in “polishing the turd”)
and
2/. it’s Mr Scorgie who seems to be obsessed with male circumcision.
Unhealthy precoccupations both.
*******************
La vita è bella, life is good!
Mary
“Several posters complained about the content of that post.”
__________________
Well they would, wouldn’t they? After all, they are fellow-Eminences, unused to being challenged with the sort of intellectual fire-power they could only dream of.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
“He was Habbakuk at the start and then became Habbabkuk later in the thread when I had pointed out that Habbakuk was a Hebrew Old Testament prophet.”
______________________
And I thank you for pointing that out Mary; I’m sure that had you not dine so, people would still be ignorant to this day about who Habbabkuk was.
At least I stick to one name, unlike someone who called themselves April Showers, May Moaners and Flaming June in quick succession (did I get those names right, Mary?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“He doing it again! Obsessed with the word.”
______________________
May I point out that it is your spiritual son Doug Scorgie who has again introduced cocks to the blog via his comment on male circumcision?
***********************
Think and live healthily – you know it’s “the right thing to do”!
Those names you listed were used by me in a vain attempt to escape your repellent and continuous attacks, as you know very well. Do not try the ingenuous act FFS. I do not intend to say any more to you. You have filled this blog with inordinate amounts of your rubbish over the last 18 months.
I notice Lady Dorking has yet to provide any explanation as to what her something of the Talmud comment about Peter Mandelson meant. Given she clearly doesn’t like Mandelson I’m afraid it can only be seen as yet another jibe against the Jewish religion.
I am also becoming increasingly of the view that “Mary” is not who she says she is – giving her/his regular visits to other web sites and her/his constant signing of petitions and zealotry for various causes, I very much doubt that such a person would confine themselves to commenting on a single blog.
Mr Scorgie and his fixations also worry me.
As far as male gential hygiene goes, washing these parts of the body (and the other places too) from time to time seems a far better solution than hacking bits off on spurious preventive grounds. I suppose desert-dwellers, centuries ago, with limited access to water, or to something approximating soap, might have been ambivalent but their ruling wise men and witch-doctors clearly thought they knew better.
Circumcision was practiced because of the the bacteria negatives found in the foreskin in ancient eras. Same with the prohibition against pork. Times have changed for some of the less ignorant and ritualistic religions of the world. Circumcision is traumatic and unnecessary.
@Mary 2 Jun,2014-5:50pm
“Each of the attack poodles chimes in with gratuitous posts. They appear to be somewhat obsessed about the mechanics of sexual activity.”
Me: Gratuitous? Mary (Encyclopedia Offtopica), you are the Queen of gratuitous commentary as demonstrated by your obsessive cutting and pasting of hundreds of thousands of words regarding any and all things both bad (real or perceived) and Jewish (real or perceived).
Can’t you occasionally put a word in for the victims of Islamic/Arabic violence?
– – –
@Mike 2 Jun,2014-7:18pm
“Jemand is right, Mary. It’s better to kill all these people, just to be on the safe side.”
Me: Mikey, I never advocated killing anybody. I didn’t even imply support. You made up that sarcastically delivered false charge only to ingratiate yourself with Mary. Mikey, you don’t need anyone’s approval to have your own opinion on things here. Try it.
– – –
@Doug Scorgie 2 Jun,2014-7:33pm
“Nice that you care Jemand. Let’s protect all children from adult abuse including the male genital mutilation conventional within the Muslim and Jewish religions.”
Like a leaf blowing in the wind, it doesn’t matter a jot that I care about anything, Doug. What does matter is action, whatever its agency. It’s a very rare moment that we should agree with each other, but on this occasion I agree with you that action needs to be taken to prevent the continued assaults upon children for religious and other reasons wherein their genitalia are interfered with, too often with devastating effects. I imagine that you didn’t expect that one from me.
The tragic story of David Reimer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
Everyone can have their opinion on male circumcision. I, however, am of the view that no one but that male has a right to choose if and when he sacrifices his own bodily flesh. As for disease control and hygeine, I do believe that millions of years of primate evolution is on my side.
The BBC dutifully report the Israelis’ objection to the new Palestinian coalition. They even had Regev on Radio 4 overnight.
Israel PM warns against Hamas-Fatah ‘terror’ cabinet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27656300
Note it is a terrrrrr grouping.
No terrrrr displayed yesterday by the IDF of course when they killed a Palestinian. That is not reported on the BBC website.
Jemand ‘that male has a right to choose if and when he sacrifices his own bodily flesh.’
What a ludicrous statement. Applicable then even when the male is a babe in arms is meeting the keen edge of the mohel’s knife? Medieval horror.
http://www.kveller.com/baby_and_toddler/Circumcision_/bris-ceremony.shtml
Mary, you must be retarded. I stated that it is only a male’s right to choose his own circumcision, no one else’s. I think it just goes to show how antagonistic and reflexively hostile you are that you would instantly infer the opposite of what I wrote.
Mary (07h38)
Look, a newly born baby cannot decide for himself whether he wants to be circumcised and so his parents – literally actinbg “in loco parentis” decide for him. In the same way as parents decide on certain vaccinations for their children of various ages.
As I cannot believe that people like Mary, Scorgie, etc really support FGM (a confirmation of that assumption would be helpful ),the conclusion must surely be that male circumcision – although carried out by Muslims as well – is being used as a stick with which to beat the Jews.
I note that Mary is very au fait with the terminology: where most of us would probably just have said “rabbi”, she uses what I suppose is the correct word “mohel”. This is a little surprising coming from someone who attempts to accuse others of being obsessed with the c**k word.
Meanwhile Agent Cameron was in Newark yesterday on his fourth visit doing some electioneering. Shown on TV at a ‘distribution centre’ in front of dozens of bored looking workers wearing high viz jackets and obviously corralled by the bosses to sit there. The price of a job in the UK in 2012 – provide a backdrop for political propaganda. Outrageous.
The premises belong to Know How which is the distribution/repair centre for Dixons Currys PC World. Owner Sir Stanley Kalms.
http://www.knowhow.com/about-knowhow.aspx?country=uk
‘Lord Kalms was treasurer of the Conservative Party, 2001-3. Like many in the party, he opposes the euro. He is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel.’ Wikipedia
Kalms has recently merged with Carphone Warehouse, owner Sir Charles Dunstone.
‘Charles Dunstone and Stanley Kalms respectively the driving forces behind Carphone Warehouse and Dixons, could hardly be more different. Lord Kalms of Edgware is a former Conservative Party treasurer who idolised Margaret Thatcher. Sir Charles’s heroes are Sir Richard Branson and Tony Blair, and he mixes with David Cameron’s Chipping Norton set.’ The Times
Cameron was there with Johnson.
TO ALL COMMENTERS
We’re getting very near to the bottom of page 3 and therefore, by definition, to the top of page 4.
Could I ask everyone to give Mary a clear run to be the last commenter on page 3 and the first on page 4, please?
It means a lot to her and you know “it’s the right thing to do”!
On behalf of Mary, many thanks!
Habbabkuk/Habbakuk has lost the plot completely. Page 4 arrives at comment no. 600. Comments currently numbered 501.
Are these trolls not infantile?
A baby has no ability to choose what is done to his body but as you say on your link Jemand ‘Take your god and shove him.’ Weird or what?
Suggest to both to get the deckchairs out of the shed and get some rest!
@Habbabkuk “Could I ask everyone to give Mary a clear run to be the last commenter on page 3 and the first on page 4, please?”
Ok
The atheist that Jemand links to is one Pat Condell.
‘Condell had posted more than 100 video monologues on various video sites as of August 2011, which together had notched up over 35 million hits, and his videos have been translated and subtitled into 14 languages on the dotSUB collaborative platform. In September 2009, he was one of the top ten most subscribed users on YouTube in the United Kingdom and the most subscribed to comedian of all time in the UK. Eight of his videos are in the top hundred most commented on videos in the UK. Most of his YouTube videos chastise Islam and Western appeasement of Islam.’
Oh I get the connection now. And I think the description of him as a ‘comedian’ is a misnomer.
You are quite unhinged, Mary. Who here has ever said that a baby has the power to consent to anything?
It is my twice stated opinion and now third attempt to drum into your thick skull that I think a person, quite obviously having the power of independent thought, speech and movement, is himself the sole arbiter of what gets cut off his own body. If that means that he must wait until he is 70 years old to convince everyone that he is acting under his own will, then so be it.
Do you now understand, Mary, or do I have to further explain using finger puppets?
Mary – “The atheist that Jemand links to is one Pat Condell.”
“The atheist” ?? It sounds to me, Mary, like you hate atheists. Which might add weight to my suspicion that you are a Muslim who hasn’t the courage of admitting so. Why do you fear us, Mary, and why do you want to cause us harm?
Attacking Pat Condell makes you look silly. It implies that you do not tolerate opinions that differ from your own. You are free to listen to Pat Condell as you are to not listen to him. Are you trying to prevent others from doing so?
That he is not a fawning apologist of Islam is apparent to anyone who cares to view his videos. So what exactly is the purpose of pointing out my link to one of his videos if not to incite the collective disapproval and jeering from your goon squad? Aren’t those the tactics we see in unruly mobs who attempt to force their ways on the rest of us?
“Are these trolls not infantile?”
_________________-
No more and no less than the bitches.
I’ve been following the discussion about male genital mutilation. One thing that has always puzzled me is why God in his wisdom instructed Abraham thus:
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Only a few chapters earlier God created man “in his image” and could have saved the medical necessity there and then of male genital mutilation. The puzzling bit for me is that despite Abraham, who begat Isaac, and all the other begettings down to 2014, when the next generation of male children is born they are all born with foreskins. The puzzle is this. Either God got it wrong in the creation process. Or Abraham, perhaps even thinking it came from God, made this instruction up and generations have been duped. Or we are all the products of evolution and there is no creator God, and the evolutionary process dictates that all males will be born with foreskins. However many circumcisions are performed the next generation of males will still be born with foreskins.
Having witnessed the circumcision by a doctor of a three year old friend of mine on his kitchen table I can tell you it is a barbaric procedure which is very painful, even if you are just an onlooker. Blood shot everywhere. I was out of that kitchen as fast as my little legs would carry me. Several weeks later when I gashed open my forehead on our mangle I refused point blank to go to a doctor such had been my first experience of the capability and cruelty of doctors. I still bear the scar. But I must apologise to Stephen Schofield for taunting him afterwards telling him he was a girl now and would have to wear dresses soon!
Yes, it’s barbaric!
Meanwhile in the real world:
The Ukraine regime uses an SU-25 ground attack aircraft to launch at least 7 rockets against civilians in central Lugansk. Videos show the aircraft firing the missiles and the missiles hitting the ground, first in the trees in the park, the later ones nearer to the civil administration building. At least 7 people were shredded by the fragmentation weapons, one poor women dying from blood loss before the eyes of helpless eyewitnesses.
The response from the west – nada, rien de chose, nix. The regime apologists claim it was a misfired manpad that somehow loped back to lock on to an air-conditioning unit in the building. AI and HRW, BBC etc etc doing their best as agents of power.
Here’s a “real” comedian for you, Mary. Unless you think that John Cleese is not a comedian (which wouldn’t surprise me).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxm1mqbgxcM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIyLuIiPuIo
Ot
Most leftists today base their thinking on False Left foundations because they know of no other foundations that accomodate their emotions. However, the structural weakness of such foundations means that adherents of left-wing ideologies generally lack inspiration. Unlike right-wing ideologies which motivate its adherents to action somewhat more easily by peddling either fear or hubris (or both), left-wing ideologies rely solely on conscience and idealism for motivation, therefore False Left foundations are largely responsible for the low ideological intensity among many leftists today.
1) Relativism
This is the idea that value judgements are subjective and therefore cannot be absolute.
2) Egalitarianism
Consequential to relativism, this is the idea that, in absence of absolute values, there can be no valid standards for determining value inequality between people, so that all people should be considered equal.
3) “Rights”
Consequential to egalitarianism, this is the idea that relationships between equal people must be relationships based on non-infringement of the pre-defined equal ”rights” of any person.
4) Hedonism
Consequential to “rights”, this is the idea that, given that the “rights” of everyone must be observed by everyone else, there can be no goal beyond acquisition of pleasure (including proxies for pleasure such as various kinds of achievement) via the range of actions permissible within the framework of “rights”, since all other goals have the potential to lead to infringement of the “rights” of at least some people.
Democracy then typically follows from this as a utilitarian argument: if all people are equal, then all people have a “right” to vote according to their wishes, but the wishes of the many outweigh the wishes of the few in priority, as going with the former produces pleasure for a greater number and displeasure for a smaller number.
To destroy the False Left, it suffices to assert absolutism instead of relativism. This is easily done by pointing out the relativist’s paradox: if subjectivity is supreme, then relativism too is a subjective conclusion, so why believe in relativism absolutely? The relativist’s own conviction in relativism shows that he himself does not consider subjectivity to be a barrier to his conclusion. In which case, non-relativists surely need not consider subjectivity a barrier to their conclusions either.
Once relativism topples, its derivatives are bound to topple with it. As soon as absolute standards are set, the inequality of people according to such standards will be exposed, the notion of “rights” will no longer make sense, and possibilities outside of hedonism will emerge. More practically, leftists will be instantly freed from the paradox of having to support democratic principles on the one hand and condemn majority opinion on the other when majority opinion happens to be right-wing. Instead, they will come to accept that genuine leftism is always anti-democratic – being as it is always based on the vision of the rare, idealistic few – and take pride in this.
The real battle in the wake of the collapse of the False Left status-quo is the battle over what standards to set as the absolute. It is this issue that sets right – variously called “New Right”, “Dissident Right”, “Alternative Right”, etc. – and left – True Left – in fundamental enmity.