The interviews with Dr. Jones are always loaded with great revelations of the globalist hidden agenda. You touched on the aircraft carrier's obsolescent status. Of course, in terms of military usefulness, the aircraft carrier battle group was obsolete, and just floating junk waiting to be sunk, back in the 1960's during the Vietnam War. Back then there were two carrier groups always floating at X-ray and Yankee Stations just waiting to be picked off by the North Vietnamese Air Force which was so good that the U.S. Navy had to start a Top Gun Fighter School at Miramar because so many Navy jets were being shot down. That begs the question of why the North Vietnamese just didn't launch any attacks against the Navy off their coast. It could be because the Soviet politburo in the USSR ordered them not to do it, for whatever reason. But now anti-ship missile technology is far superior and accuracy is precision quality guided by satellite GPS coordinates. We have seen our carriers being kept far away from hypersonic missile range for obvious reasons. We know they're no good and are sitting ducks. But when we see those ducks moving back into firing range, it would be at that time that we should all take that as a signal that the forces governing geopolitical order will have decided that the time for a false flag attack has come to get the US of Israel into a boots-on-the-ground operation. Just like the US liberty shot to pieces in 1967 the attack can be cleverly disguised to attach blame to whomever, the same scenario will occur. And the sucker punch will likely be blamed on Iran. So keep your eye on the carriers' positions. When they move back in closer to the eastern Mediterranean, it's time to say "Let's go Brandon!" Then head for the bunkers.
While the new Prime Minister of the UK is quasi-Jewish - his wife a Jew and they raise their children in the Jewish tradition - the overall picture is not a straightforward extrapolation of this.
Shabana Mahmood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood is the new Lord Chancellor and Sectretary of State for Justice. She was born in Birmingham to Saudi Arabian parents and spent her first six years in Saudi Arabia before returning to Birmingham. She is one of the first female Muslim MPs and has been member for Birmingham since 2010.
The short answer is that my view is similar to a baseline interpretation of US First Amendment jurisprudence circa 1950. At that time exceptions to protected speech included defamation, pornography, obscenity, blasphemy, and fraud. All of those categories pose the same kinds of problems you raised, and First Amendment jurisprudence found solutions. The "reasonable person" standard worked pretty well in 1950, maybe because people were more reasonable then ; - ) For a longer answer, once again, please read the intro to https://www.unz.com/book/kevin_barrett__we-are-not-charlie-hebdo/ .
Mahmood sounds OK, but the new UK government AS A WHOLE will not be anti-genocide like Spain or (we hope) France under Melanchon, because Labour has been totally taken over and remade by the Jewish-Zionist oligarchs.
As for blasphemy laws, all Western nations used to have them, until the Jews, whose religion (rejection of the universal God and rejection of universal prophets Jesus and Mohammad) insists on blaspheming against Jesus, made satanism/secularism the real religion of the elites. "Blasphemy" is not reasoned argument against a religion, it's vile emotional attack that a reasonable believer in that religion would find offensive. It is crazy NOT to have blasphemy laws, and of course they should apply to all religions. For a more elaborate discussion, see my introduction to this book, available free online: https://www.unz.com/book/kevin_barrett__we-are-not-charlie-hebdo/
"An independent state is the “undeniable right” of the Palestinian people, Sir Keir Starmer said on Sunday, as he held his first call with the Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
"In a marked change in tone from the new government, Starmer told Netanyahu there was a “clear and urgent” need for a ceasefire in Gaza as well as an immediate increase in the volume of humanitarian aid reaching civilians.
"He also urged Netanyahu to show restraint after the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group launched more than 200 rockets and attack drones into northern Israel last week."
In arguing for blasphemy laws, I assume you mean criminal penalties for communication in mass media and public meetings for some definition of "religious belief". Do you also propose this for private emails, letters and direct conversations, including between strangers?
To have criminal or even civil laws prohibiting free speech where the criteria depends on whether a reasonable believer of such a religion would find the utterance offensive opens up a vast range and depth of problems. It would be tyrannical.
Do you count Scientology as a religion?
Do you think there is a reasonable believer in Scientology?
I think every theology I have ever heard of is ridiculous on its face, so I don't consider any believer of such theology "reasonable", at least regarding that belief.
All these theologies, thinking here of the Mosaic religions - not about whatever theology might be in Hinduism, Buddhism, tribal religions etc., but probably including Zoroastrianism - involve a single creator God who cares about humans (or perhaps just about the Jewish subset of humans). Generally "love" is a part of these theologies, not just "care". The theologies involve humans being obligated to love (or at least do business with, in Judaism), honor and obey (or at least, in Judaism, argue with) this all-powerful creator God, who by virtue of his status as creator of the Universe still controls it in every respect. (It is ridiculous to argue that somehow the creator lost control of his creator, while still insisting that he loves and cares for the sentient beings which are part of what he created.)
I recently got into an argument on a Substack comment thread in which some commenters argued that progressivism, or whatever path they generally favoured towards a better society, was suffering due to increasing loss of belief in Christianity - with the assumption (which I think is broadly true) that Western civilisation is strongly based on a Christian foundation, though some also argue that it is based on a rejection of some aspects of religion in general and Christianity in particular . . . no-one can really agree exactly what "Christianity" or indeed "Western civilization" means . . . . . .) and that therefore all those involved need to adopt the Christian faith.
Someone disagreed with my critique of this idea and said that I should understand whatever it is he thinks "Christianity" is before criticising it. He or she wrote, in part: "Read 'Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis. It’s not enough but a decent start."
I replied:
"If the creator of the Universe cared for humanity - to the point of loving humans individually or collectively as Christians claim - we would know all about it without needing to read scripture, works by CS Lewis, or arguments from people who believe one of the countless religious doctrines which have self-spawned and diverged over thousands of years."
Further: If someone loves you and is involved in your life (the person is not dead, not in prison, not completely out of touch) then you know all about it. You don't need to rely on old documents, or what anyone tells you. You know it is real because it is an undeniable everyday part of your life.
If there was an all powerful creator God who loved us and wanted or expected us to understand, worship and obey him, he would organise things so that humans could understand him clearly. Instead, we see dozens of major religions over the millennia, with thousands of thousands of strands of divergent belief - all the product of humans striving to understand what they want to exist, an all-powerful big-daddy God.
(I am not suggesting there is nothing beyond our current life, or beyond our immediate senses and what scientists can sense and experiment with. I believe there is a "spiritual" realm we are part of, which expects us to do well, and which can reassure and guide us. I don't believe the Big Bang Theory - I have no idea why there is anything at all: the 3 dimensions, gravity, the electromagnetic force, the energy which can be tied up in knots to form matter etc. The most difficult to understand aspect of the directly observable Universe is the wavelike properties of matter, which cause protons and neutrons to form nuclei and which cause nuclei and electrons to form atoms and molecules - as emergent behaviour from this simple but perplexing principle. I can't rule out that there is a creator of all this - and there are arguments for this, if we remember that it doesn't answer the question of why there is anything at all. So I am not anything like a normal "atheist". I think numerous spiritual / mystical experiences are real. All I am saying is that they result from this realm or whatever it is which has developed within the Universe. We are part if it and it loves and tries to care for us. However, it is not all powerful. If it was, it would intervene in numerous instances of soul-crushing, life-mangling, love and relationship destroying disastrous events, only a small subset of which involve human cruelty or neglect.)
This is an honest statement of my belief about a whole range of religions, surely including Islam. Does the above offend any believers you think are reasonable?
If not, I was just being polite.
The Middle East would be a much safer, more agreeable, place if not for the actions of people who base their whole lives on their religious beliefs, not least Jewish supremacists who *know* from their God, that they alone have rights to land there - and many of them extend this to Eretz Israel which goes from the Nile to the Euphrates.
It would not be hard to say something which those people find offensive. They have perfectly sincere religious beliefs. Do you argue that any such statements be subject to civil or criminal prohibition? Do you think such laws should be the same in all countries? If you think they are fundamentally valid and badly needed, I guess so.
In your introduction, you seem to be concerned about "'verbal, symbolic attacks' have long been wielded as a weapon of war against the religion of Islam and the community of believers." So I guess is the sort of thing you class as "blasphemy" and want to prohibit.
If one or more people think a set of religious beliefs - for instance "Islam", or "Judaism" or some aspect of each one - are false, harmful (to believers or anyone else), don't want believers in such religions in their country, or anywhere nearby, and honestly express why they think this and fear their lives being altered by the presence of such people, this would surely offend some of the believers, even if these are just statements (not actual rockets and bullets) - just "verbal and symbolic attacks". Do you really argue for worldwide criminalization of such statements?
What about prohibiting people stating, openly, that a genuinely trans-person or pseudo-trans-person (lots around now, thanks to the social contagion) is not the sex they think they are, and which they insist we behave as if they were?
After Ethic Cleansing of Muslims in Gaza, after Ethnic Cleansing of Christians in Greater Israel Ukraine, after Ethnic Cleansing the world with 14 billion bioweapon shots, trust the science, you’re on their menu too.
you betcha. We can't all be among the 500,000 which the Georgia Guidestones ( now blasted to smithereens) told us was the upper limit of human population while maintaining our "balance" with nature. "leave room for nature" the stones ordered. I feel a little ambiguous as I was raised by "educated" parents who deplored the fact the "wrong sorts" were producing far too many children and soon nothing but suburbs would cover the earth. Now the DEAGLE REPORT says that the United States will be depopulated and there won't be many whites left anywhere....Maybe that is "good"? Better than blowing everything up with bombs.
The interviews with Dr. Jones are always loaded with great revelations of the globalist hidden agenda. You touched on the aircraft carrier's obsolescent status. Of course, in terms of military usefulness, the aircraft carrier battle group was obsolete, and just floating junk waiting to be sunk, back in the 1960's during the Vietnam War. Back then there were two carrier groups always floating at X-ray and Yankee Stations just waiting to be picked off by the North Vietnamese Air Force which was so good that the U.S. Navy had to start a Top Gun Fighter School at Miramar because so many Navy jets were being shot down. That begs the question of why the North Vietnamese just didn't launch any attacks against the Navy off their coast. It could be because the Soviet politburo in the USSR ordered them not to do it, for whatever reason. But now anti-ship missile technology is far superior and accuracy is precision quality guided by satellite GPS coordinates. We have seen our carriers being kept far away from hypersonic missile range for obvious reasons. We know they're no good and are sitting ducks. But when we see those ducks moving back into firing range, it would be at that time that we should all take that as a signal that the forces governing geopolitical order will have decided that the time for a false flag attack has come to get the US of Israel into a boots-on-the-ground operation. Just like the US liberty shot to pieces in 1967 the attack can be cleverly disguised to attach blame to whomever, the same scenario will occur. And the sucker punch will likely be blamed on Iran. So keep your eye on the carriers' positions. When they move back in closer to the eastern Mediterranean, it's time to say "Let's go Brandon!" Then head for the bunkers.
Pat Flanagan
While the new Prime Minister of the UK is quasi-Jewish - his wife a Jew and they raise their children in the Jewish tradition - the overall picture is not a straightforward extrapolation of this.
Shabana Mahmood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood is the new Lord Chancellor and Sectretary of State for Justice. She was born in Birmingham to Saudi Arabian parents and spent her first six years in Saudi Arabia before returning to Birmingham. She is one of the first female Muslim MPs and has been member for Birmingham since 2010.
She is a "passionate and determined supporter of Palestinian rights": https://www.shabanamahmood.org/2021/06/10/palestine/ and in 2014 tweeted in support of freeing Palestine and BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sactions of Israel): https://x.com/ShabanaMahmood/status/494842854569963520. Here is a picture of her, perhaps from some years ago, holding a Free Palestine placard: https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/1809257305461977210.
She has sided with JK Rowling in defence of women against the onslaught of the trans-activist shit-fest, which denies that biological sex exists and is immutuable: https://web.archive.org/web/20240422221410/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/22/shadow-justice-secretary-agrees-jk-rowling-biological-sex/
Here is a video by Peter Whittle (no relation) with https://barenakedislam.com/2024/07/06/uk-labour-party-victory-will-inevitably-usher-in-the-era-of-sharia-blasphemy-laws/. It begins with an undated interview with Keir Starmer about how Islamophobia is intolerable. He argues that the new Labour government will implement what amounts to blasphemy laws targeting any criticism of Islam.
I am not saying I have a clue what is going on here - just that it is not, apparently, all one way or the other.
The short answer is that my view is similar to a baseline interpretation of US First Amendment jurisprudence circa 1950. At that time exceptions to protected speech included defamation, pornography, obscenity, blasphemy, and fraud. All of those categories pose the same kinds of problems you raised, and First Amendment jurisprudence found solutions. The "reasonable person" standard worked pretty well in 1950, maybe because people were more reasonable then ; - ) For a longer answer, once again, please read the intro to https://www.unz.com/book/kevin_barrett__we-are-not-charlie-hebdo/ .
Mahmood sounds OK, but the new UK government AS A WHOLE will not be anti-genocide like Spain or (we hope) France under Melanchon, because Labour has been totally taken over and remade by the Jewish-Zionist oligarchs.
As for blasphemy laws, all Western nations used to have them, until the Jews, whose religion (rejection of the universal God and rejection of universal prophets Jesus and Mohammad) insists on blaspheming against Jesus, made satanism/secularism the real religion of the elites. "Blasphemy" is not reasoned argument against a religion, it's vile emotional attack that a reasonable believer in that religion would find offensive. It is crazy NOT to have blasphemy laws, and of course they should apply to all religions. For a more elaborate discussion, see my introduction to this book, available free online: https://www.unz.com/book/kevin_barrett__we-are-not-charlie-hebdo/
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-warns-binyamin-netanyahu-over-lebanese-border-tensions-m0qgfb9gj
"An independent state is the “undeniable right” of the Palestinian people, Sir Keir Starmer said on Sunday, as he held his first call with the Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
"In a marked change in tone from the new government, Starmer told Netanyahu there was a “clear and urgent” need for a ceasefire in Gaza as well as an immediate increase in the volume of humanitarian aid reaching civilians.
"He also urged Netanyahu to show restraint after the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group launched more than 200 rockets and attack drones into northern Israel last week."
In arguing for blasphemy laws, I assume you mean criminal penalties for communication in mass media and public meetings for some definition of "religious belief". Do you also propose this for private emails, letters and direct conversations, including between strangers?
To have criminal or even civil laws prohibiting free speech where the criteria depends on whether a reasonable believer of such a religion would find the utterance offensive opens up a vast range and depth of problems. It would be tyrannical.
Do you count Scientology as a religion?
Do you think there is a reasonable believer in Scientology?
I think every theology I have ever heard of is ridiculous on its face, so I don't consider any believer of such theology "reasonable", at least regarding that belief.
All these theologies, thinking here of the Mosaic religions - not about whatever theology might be in Hinduism, Buddhism, tribal religions etc., but probably including Zoroastrianism - involve a single creator God who cares about humans (or perhaps just about the Jewish subset of humans). Generally "love" is a part of these theologies, not just "care". The theologies involve humans being obligated to love (or at least do business with, in Judaism), honor and obey (or at least, in Judaism, argue with) this all-powerful creator God, who by virtue of his status as creator of the Universe still controls it in every respect. (It is ridiculous to argue that somehow the creator lost control of his creator, while still insisting that he loves and cares for the sentient beings which are part of what he created.)
I recently got into an argument on a Substack comment thread in which some commenters argued that progressivism, or whatever path they generally favoured towards a better society, was suffering due to increasing loss of belief in Christianity - with the assumption (which I think is broadly true) that Western civilisation is strongly based on a Christian foundation, though some also argue that it is based on a rejection of some aspects of religion in general and Christianity in particular . . . no-one can really agree exactly what "Christianity" or indeed "Western civilization" means . . . . . .) and that therefore all those involved need to adopt the Christian faith.
Someone disagreed with my critique of this idea and said that I should understand whatever it is he thinks "Christianity" is before criticising it. He or she wrote, in part: "Read 'Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis. It’s not enough but a decent start."
I replied:
"If the creator of the Universe cared for humanity - to the point of loving humans individually or collectively as Christians claim - we would know all about it without needing to read scripture, works by CS Lewis, or arguments from people who believe one of the countless religious doctrines which have self-spawned and diverged over thousands of years."
Further: If someone loves you and is involved in your life (the person is not dead, not in prison, not completely out of touch) then you know all about it. You don't need to rely on old documents, or what anyone tells you. You know it is real because it is an undeniable everyday part of your life.
If there was an all powerful creator God who loved us and wanted or expected us to understand, worship and obey him, he would organise things so that humans could understand him clearly. Instead, we see dozens of major religions over the millennia, with thousands of thousands of strands of divergent belief - all the product of humans striving to understand what they want to exist, an all-powerful big-daddy God.
(I am not suggesting there is nothing beyond our current life, or beyond our immediate senses and what scientists can sense and experiment with. I believe there is a "spiritual" realm we are part of, which expects us to do well, and which can reassure and guide us. I don't believe the Big Bang Theory - I have no idea why there is anything at all: the 3 dimensions, gravity, the electromagnetic force, the energy which can be tied up in knots to form matter etc. The most difficult to understand aspect of the directly observable Universe is the wavelike properties of matter, which cause protons and neutrons to form nuclei and which cause nuclei and electrons to form atoms and molecules - as emergent behaviour from this simple but perplexing principle. I can't rule out that there is a creator of all this - and there are arguments for this, if we remember that it doesn't answer the question of why there is anything at all. So I am not anything like a normal "atheist". I think numerous spiritual / mystical experiences are real. All I am saying is that they result from this realm or whatever it is which has developed within the Universe. We are part if it and it loves and tries to care for us. However, it is not all powerful. If it was, it would intervene in numerous instances of soul-crushing, life-mangling, love and relationship destroying disastrous events, only a small subset of which involve human cruelty or neglect.)
This is an honest statement of my belief about a whole range of religions, surely including Islam. Does the above offend any believers you think are reasonable?
If not, I was just being polite.
The Middle East would be a much safer, more agreeable, place if not for the actions of people who base their whole lives on their religious beliefs, not least Jewish supremacists who *know* from their God, that they alone have rights to land there - and many of them extend this to Eretz Israel which goes from the Nile to the Euphrates.
It would not be hard to say something which those people find offensive. They have perfectly sincere religious beliefs. Do you argue that any such statements be subject to civil or criminal prohibition? Do you think such laws should be the same in all countries? If you think they are fundamentally valid and badly needed, I guess so.
In your introduction, you seem to be concerned about "'verbal, symbolic attacks' have long been wielded as a weapon of war against the religion of Islam and the community of believers." So I guess is the sort of thing you class as "blasphemy" and want to prohibit.
If one or more people think a set of religious beliefs - for instance "Islam", or "Judaism" or some aspect of each one - are false, harmful (to believers or anyone else), don't want believers in such religions in their country, or anywhere nearby, and honestly express why they think this and fear their lives being altered by the presence of such people, this would surely offend some of the believers, even if these are just statements (not actual rockets and bullets) - just "verbal and symbolic attacks". Do you really argue for worldwide criminalization of such statements?
What about prohibiting people stating, openly, that a genuinely trans-person or pseudo-trans-person (lots around now, thanks to the social contagion) is not the sex they think they are, and which they insist we behave as if they were?
Enjoyable show. E Michael on a roll.
Don’t drink the Juice. It’s poisonous. Just bleed them out
It may seem bad now but the Jews are exposed like never
before. The seeds of anti semitism have been spread to
virgin grounds. People throughout the world are
disgusted by Israel & the years of lying bullshit are over.
EUROPE GOING ANTIDEVIL.... how intolerable
After Ethic Cleansing of Muslims in Gaza, after Ethnic Cleansing of Christians in Greater Israel Ukraine, after Ethnic Cleansing the world with 14 billion bioweapon shots, trust the science, you’re on their menu too.
you betcha. We can't all be among the 500,000 which the Georgia Guidestones ( now blasted to smithereens) told us was the upper limit of human population while maintaining our "balance" with nature. "leave room for nature" the stones ordered. I feel a little ambiguous as I was raised by "educated" parents who deplored the fact the "wrong sorts" were producing far too many children and soon nothing but suburbs would cover the earth. Now the DEAGLE REPORT says that the United States will be depopulated and there won't be many whites left anywhere....Maybe that is "good"? Better than blowing everything up with bombs.