October 27, 2023
- Israel has played the role of Sisyphus in Gaza for virtually the entire nearly 2 decades since it left Gaza. The horrific Hamas attacks of 7 October reveal the futility of that “strategy,” and persisting in it will only guarantee a repeat–or worse. Although success is not guaranteed, at least at a price acceptable to Israel, it should now endeavor to push the rock down the other side of the mountain and extirpate Hamas.
- Israel seemed determined to do that in the immediate aftermath of the horrific attacks, but has delayed, apparently due to pressure primarily from the US but also Europe. The claim is that the US needs a delay in order to rush anti-air and anti-missile defenses to protect its troops and facilities in the Middle East. Perhaps, but the mixed messages coming out of Washington suggest that there are elements within the administration who are opposed to Israel eliminating Hamas.
- The US’s and Europe’s interests are not aligned with Israel’s. The “leaders” of other nations do not face the threat from Hamas that Israel does, and would much prefer to kick the can down the road and make the reckoning the problem of future governments. Furthermore, Europe in particular is infested with Arab and Muslim populations who are violently anti-Israel. Feckless Europeans are deathly afraid of mass uprisings among these populations in the event of an overwhelming Israeli invasion of Gaza.
- The 7 October attack obviously represents a colossal intelligence failure by Israel and the United States. Virtually all such intelligence failures reflect not the failure to obtain the necessary information, but instead the failure to interpret the information properly. Such failures are almost always attributable to the dominance of preconceived beliefs that are inconsistent with the information. That is, to an overweighting of prior beliefs and a failure to update them upon receipt of contrary information. In the presence of such beliefs, the information produces, at most, cognitive dissonance that leads to its being dismissed.
- That appears to be the case for 7 October. Israel had been engaging with Hamas for months, and had become convinced that Hamas had become focused on economic development in Gaza, and hence that it would not jeopardize greater access of its population to Israeli labor markets and the like.
- There is no doubt in my mind that Hamas deliberately cultivated such beliefs precisely in order to lull Israel into a false sense of security. This is a staple of Muslim, Koranic war fighting doctrine. Israel and the United States–again–mirror imaged by thinking Hamas was motivated by the kinds of economic considerations that guide policy in their countries, and by ignoring Hamas’s adamant Muslim beliefs and tactics.
- Post-7 October and during the period of threatened a massive Israeli move into Gaza there has been a virtually unanimous outcry for a renewed pursuit of the “Two State Solution.” The Two State Solution is a zombie idea advanced by zombie politicians. It will never live but it won’t die.
- Those who matter in the Palestinian polity–the hardest men with the guns–have no interest whatsoever in the 2SS. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. They are interested only in a One State Solution, with the extermination of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state “from the river [Jordan] to the sea.” And these maximalist goals are supported by a large majority of Palestinians. The refusal of Western politicians to listen to Palestinians’ openly stated goals is precisely why these poltiicans are utterly useless, and why this conflict persists. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt, and it is a disastrous basis for policy.
- To the extent that various Palestinian interests do play along with a 2SS they are just reenacting Mohammed’s hudna with the Quraish–and at times have said that openly (e.g., Arafat). A means to buy time and gather strength for an ultimate resumption of a war of extermination.
- All of the above implies that all of the conventional wisdom and shibboleths that have dominated Western discourse and policy for the past 50 plus years should be eliminated, with extreme prejudice. But the scales still obviously remain over Western eyes–and many Israeli eyes too. Politicians are loath to admit failure or to admit that they were wrong. They are loath to jettison the comforting belief that this is a conflict that can be resolved through some Westphalian negotiation between non-ideological sovereigns, rather than an intractable ideological struggle between implacable foes with utterly incompatible objectives. So the zombies carry on with their zombie policies, meaning that the horrors will carry on as well.
- One wonders what Hamas intended to accomplish on 7 October. Perhaps an orgy of murder and rape was a sufficient end in itself for Hamas, because beyond that it accomplished nothing for Hamas and indeed may have put it in an existential crisis by greatly increasing the likelihood that Israel would respond by attempting to eliminate Hamas.
- But there is no reason to believe that Hamas is primarily an independent actor. Looking at cui bono, the most likely beneficiary is Iran. These events occurred precisely when Israel and Gulf Arab states were on the verge of mutual recognition that would have created an anti-Iran axis. That rapprochement is now in shambles. Thus, one explanation for the Hamas attack, and its timing, is that it was intended to prevent this development.
- If so, it has succeeded admirably–at least on the surface. If the Saudis et al do indeed back away from the normalization of relations with Israel, they will be handing Iran a victory. One can only hope that their public statements are a blind, and that in private they are actually continuing to move forward with Israel.
- Iran is the center of gravity in this conflict. Financially and militarily it is the driving force behind the anti-Israel axis (which includes Hezbollah as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad). Heretofore, Iran has been largely immune from direct attack because it can act powerfully through its proxies. A crucial question is whether Iran will remain merely the puppet master and paymaster if Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas. Its calculation will depend on its perception of the consequences of direct intervention (by, for example, launching missile strikes on Tel Aviv).
- Minimizing this threat requires putting at risk things vital to the Iranian regime. The two most precious things are their own hides, and their nuclear program.
- Russia has come out foursquare behind Hamas and against Israel. (A Hamas delegation is in Moscow as I write this). This despite the fact that Putin has had good relations with Israel historically. But the reason is readily understood–again, it is Iran. Iran is a major supplier of weapons (especially drones) to Russia in its war against Ukraine.
- One would think that since everything and everyone remotely pro-Russian is an anathema in present day DC, the Russian-Iranian alliance would make Iran an anathema. Yet the US has been notably circumspect in its condemnation of Iran despite its obvious central role in fomenting anti-Israel violence. The administration has bent over backwards to say it has no evidence of “direct” Iranian involvement in the Hamas atrocities–although what short of Iranian missiles impacting Tel Aviv would constitute “direct” involvement remains unstated. In his statements Biden has avoided even saying the word “Iran.”
- This is another baleful legacy of Obama’s obsession with treating with Iran and normalizing the Islamic republic. Taking his statements at face value (not that you should), Obama believed he was (and is, via his marionette successor) contributing to stability in the Middle East that would allow the US to pivot to Asia. How’s that working out, genius? Empowering Iran (via monetary payments, reintegrating them into the world oil market, restraining Israeli actions against it, etc.) has instead led to a situation in which substantial American military resources are being sucked back into the region. But the pro-Iran elements in the administration (and the State Department) still seem to be driving policy–yet another zombie policy implemented by zombie politicians and apparatchiks.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
@148 Mikey — worthwhile considerations, thanks. The meaning of Enlightenment in the sense we’re discussing it should be defined by the historical event, not by cultural usages recorded in a dictionary.
The historical event — the Enlightenment — marks the emergent primacy of science and reason in the formation of understandings and opinions.
The consequent transformations of societies by way of men and women turning first to science and reason could not be more profound. Heretics no longer burned, or broken and hoisted on wheels. Debtors no longer imprisoned. Consciences and speech let free.
Elevating science and reason is not to make an error of Descartes. The message of the Enlightenment is not to deny feeling but to temper it with reason. Only reason can tell us whether a feeling is justified or not. A feeling cannot justify reasoning.
Using feelings to justify reasoning leads immediately to ends justifying means and the murderous horrors of every utopian ideology that has come to power.
The Enlightenment elevated reason to be the bridle of feeling. Everything worthwhile in our entire civilization depends from that restraint.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 30, 2023 @ 6:44 pm
@149 Mikey — the Giordano Bruno Foundation is wrong (I’m relying here on your rendition of it). The “emergence of totalitarian regimes [is not] due … to the problem of the ‘halved Enlightenment.’”
The emergence of totalitarian regimes — those motivated by some utopian ideology — are the offspring of the Romantic counter-Enlightenment. The Romantics detest science and reason. They elevate passion and feeling over everything, including law.
This sentence, “For centuries, the only aspect of the Enlightenment that had an impact on society was that which could be described as ‘instrumental reason’, while the practical, ethical and ideologically positive impulses of the Enlightenment were largely ignored.” is also wrong in light of the US Constitution.
You may have heard of American exceptionalism. That exceptionalism refers exactly to the Constitution as the foundational document of our Republic. It is unique in the world.
The Constitution establishes Enlightenment ethics as the basis of US society — now under violent attack by the so-called left. Today’s progressives carry the flag of the 18th century Romantics into the present. They detest science and reason. They disdain our Constitution. They intend to impose their utopian slave-state where feelings — their feelings — governs all.
Western Europe has already abandoned Enlightenment ethics. Even England has done — the land of John Locke. The peril of a new dark age is quite apparent.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 30, 2023 @ 7:03 pm
@150 libte “I am independently wealthy (I am thought leader/futurist/DEI consultant…)”
So — a layabout, (poseur/fantasist/racist-cum-sexist). I’m not surprised.
“the joke is on you.” It is to laugh.
“the Nueremberg trials were not found to be criminal under such imprecise thing as “enlightenment ethics”, it was customary international law that was applied.”
Utterly wrong. Benjamin B. Ferencz (1990) “The Nuremberg Precedent And The Prosecution Of State- Sponsored Mass Murder” NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law 11(3), Article 2.
Quoting: “The inclusion of [crimes against humanity] among the others represented a great step forward in the struggle against state-sponsored mass murder. For the first time in legal history, it became an international crime for a state to murder its own citizens. Before Nuremberg, this type of murder was quite common. In fact, foreign nations objecting to such conduct were not allowed to intervene, but could only send a “diplomatic note” to the offending state.
…
“After Nuremberg, state-sponsored murder was declared to be a crime against humanity under international law.
Enlightenment ethics in action: “In his opening statement at Nuremberg, Justice Robert Jackson, who was on leave from the United States Supreme Court to be the chief prosecutor for the United States at the International Military Tribunal (IMT), said, “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason. In other words, the very fact that we would put the Nazis on trial after the enormous crimes which had been committed was itself a great achievement showing respect for law.” My emphasis throughout.
You should do the research before declaiming, libte.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 30, 2023 @ 7:34 pm
@Pat Frank: well, so we live in different paradigms then. Science is just one academic discipline amongst others. The task is not one of primacy or means and ends, it’s one of how it works together…internally as externally.
@libte: could not read your post, guess one cannot view the posts on other pages. Thank you Pat for refering to parts of it. Had thought by myself before, I knew an author who had the private funds and situation of not needing a day job, nor seeing a point in it for himself in his situation, nor a calling. He, with his sense of humour, described himself most of the time as being ‘self-unemployed’…I liked that.
Comment by Mikey — December 1, 2023 @ 5:23 am
HI Mikey – there may be a more clever workaround, but you can access my last post using
https://streetwiseprofessor.com/18-observations-on-israel-hamas/comment-page-3/
Pat Frank. Funnily enough, the examples you use confirm my position. At the same time, they do not contradict what you are saying, it’s just that you are missing the link between the two: a moral code and ethics leads to the application of international criminal law leads to the prosecution of war criminals.
Your first quote: “it became an international CRIME”, a crime against the customary international law, which itself is based on ethics and morals, you silly little bugger!
Your second quote: “submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the LAW” LAW, Patrick Frank, the judgement of the LAW, not the judgment of the ethicality.
Young cockatoo, you are getting so close. Your quotes confirm that I was right all along, and that you are learning. What you are saying is not wrong, but where you are wrong is in your belief that it contradicts what I am saying. Affectionally, Libte
Comment by [email protected] — December 1, 2023 @ 8:34 am
@154 Mikey — science is our only path to objective knowledge. It is *not* merely one academic discipline among others.
Neither Mechanics nor Evolutionary Biology is the equivalent of Critical Race Theory (neither critical nor a theory) or Gender Studies, or any other sociological narrative or trope of post-modern pseudo-scholarship.
And, just in case you have him in mind, Thomas Kuhn’s description of science is wrong.
“it’s one of how it works together” Fascism is very efficient. But everyone must be a slave and judicial process is whimsy.
Means and ends, Mikey. Much more important than you allow.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 9:58 am
@155 libte — explain how For the first time in legal history, … and “After Nuremberg, … equate to “customary.”
I begin to think your problem is dyslexia because you clearly have serious problems parsing the meaning transmitted by the written word.
Our conversation began when you took umbrage at my legitimate use of “savage.” You lost that debate.
You denied the importance of culture in perception of criminality, you were blind to the centrality of the Enlightenment to Western law, and now — in a direct admission of defeat — you pretend to have argued all along the very same importance of ethics in law that you previously and manifestly denied.
Disallowed, libte.
I’m sure your involvement in DEI lets you feel pious. But in fact you promote systemic racist and sexist bias. That’s where your mindless feelings-driven life has got you. Doing in fact exactly what you purportedly abhor.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 10:15 am
Mikey — notice the “comment-page-4/#comment” in the web-address.
If you substitute “3” or “2” or “1” in the address, the previous comments will be available to you.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 10:17 am
@pat frank and libte: thank you for the hints about reading old comments/pages. it works, much appreciated.
@pat frank: I was thinking much broader, e.g. how ‘mind’ and feelings and emotions, how body and ‘spirit’ work together for a person. That’s not fascism.
Stanford did have an interdisciplinary study program in design, a cooperation of the arts (Matt Kahn: https://exhibits.stanford.edu/Kahn ) and mechanical engineering department: http://www.stevenmccarthy.design/DesignStanford/Design-at-Stanford.html . Science is ‘not enough’ for design challenges.
What do we do here on this planet? Living a life. It’s not a science.
Comment by Mikey — December 1, 2023 @ 10:52 am
@159 Mikey — Science informs. You decide. For better or worse.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 10:59 am
@Pat Frank: You talk about ‘Enlightenment ethics’. Is ethics a science? Can ethics be appreciated without feelings? Reason and feelings need to go hand on hand. Means and ends go hand in hand there.
Comment by Mikey — December 1, 2023 @ 11:30 am
Ach Herr Frank, your memory, or your reading comprehension, betrays you.
My very first point was that Apartheid committed acts of suicide, something that you agreed with (proved me right). I never had a problem with using the word savage, even if you really really wanted me to?
My later point is that you said that apartheid culture did not permit eyegouging, something which you then admitted was wrong.
My final point, which you have yet to disprove (because you can’t) is that criminals are judged in the light of a book of law, not by something that you call enlightenment ethics, is also correct.
You raised many other points which are wrong, but I chose to not correct your thinking merely for entertainment values, see how you entangle yourselves in contradictory positions, is endlessly amusing to me.
My most important argument, however, and one you agree with implicitly and explicitly, is that you must choose between the path of the cockatoo or the medieval monk. It is entirely your choice.
Comment by [email protected] — December 1, 2023 @ 11:38 am
@161 Mikey — Is ethics a science? Not yet. But I’m working on it.
Can ethics be appreciated without feelings? Only by Vulcans. But human feeling does not obviate that Enlightenment ethics is based in science and reason.
Reason and feelings need to go hand on hand. Feelings must serve reason. Vice versa leads to the horrors of ideology.
Means and ends go hand in hand there. Ends never justify means, except in self-defense against existential aggression.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 1:25 pm
@162 libte __ “I never had a problem with using the word savage,…
Your very first comment (#54) to me about use of “savage.” The apartheid regime routinely and systematically tortured people en masse Pat Frank – and yet you say “the other ones” were the savages? Comment by [email protected] — November 7, 2023 @ 5:14 pm
So you’ve a problem with memory (if not honesty) as well as dyslexia.
You wrote “My later point is that you said that apartheid culture did not permit eyegouging, something which you then admitted was wrong.
Wrong again libte. I wrote that the Enlightenment culture on which SA law was based disallowed eye-gouging. As it did. The fact that a police officer gouged someone’s eyes does not contradict that.
You have invariably displayed an inability to grasp that simple logic.
You wrote, “My final point, which you have yet to disprove (because you can’t) is that criminals are judged in the light of a book of law, not by something that you call enlightenment ethics, is also correct.”
Wrong yet again, libte. Under Enlightenment ethics, criminal laws are valid only when they are humane. Legalisms of any given state can themselves be criminal in light of Enlightenment ethics. That is the advance of Nuremberg.
Yet once again, you show yourself unable to parse the logic of the argument.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 1:44 pm
You are not able to follow your own train of thoughts
Let’s look exactly at what you wrote initially: “Apartheid culture did not permit necklacing or gouging the eyes of prisoners”
And now you are saying ” Enlightenment culture on which SA law was based disallowed eye-gouging”
Now pls explain to us how apartheid culture is the same thing as enlightenment culture on which SA law is based. Good luck with that, you buffoon.
Comment by [email protected] — December 1, 2023 @ 2:03 pm
@65 libte — yuo wrote, “Now pls explain to us how apartheid culture is the same thing as enlightenment culture”
Because it is based on Dutch-Roman common law. This is the fourth time I’ve had to point this out to you (cf. #88, #97, #139).
There’s your memory glitch, in action again. It seems only to exacerbate your inability to follow the logical thread of the debate.
The fact that SA violated Enlightenment ethics and Dutch-Roman common law, both, in imposing cruel tortures in no way gainsays that the Enlightenment was the basis of their culture.
It is only by way of the Enlightenment that we know torture and racism are wrong — of which fact you have evidently lived in ignorance.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 2:37 pm
It doesn’t make it the same thing, ignoramus. It’s like saying bread and pizza are the same thing because they are both based on dough (a metaphor even you could understand, one can hope).
Comment by [email protected] — December 1, 2023 @ 2:41 pm
@Pat Frank: Reasoning is ‘technically’ not even possible without feeling. E.g. Homeostatic feelings. I’m ‘trained’ to distinguish emotions from feelings, where emotions are reactions (to opinions) and theatrics, feelings are sensations. Ideology is both an issue of emotion as well as thinking, it’s not because feeling would not serve reason, the reasoning goes wrong here and gets invested with emotion. A psychlogical understanding is necessary, understanding also is not possible without feelings here. Is ethics a means or an ends? Both.
Comment by Mikey — December 1, 2023 @ 2:49 pm
@167 libte — Apartheid culture had law derived from the Enlightenment. They violated that foundational principle. It’s not a subtle point, but you never fail to fail to grasp it.
@168 Mikey — define “feelings” as you mean it.
This paper defines ‘homeostatic feelings’, which translate the process of life regulation and include salient fluctuations, e.g. hunger, pain, wellbeing, and states closer to equilibrium, e.g. plain feelings of life/existence.
If that’s what you mean, it seems as you’re merely saying that reasoning is not possible without individual consciousness.
Ethics are principles. Means are actions and ends are goals.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 4:50 pm
To clarify Mikey, I meant feelings to mean investiture of self-serving emotion, not the sensations of life.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 1, 2023 @ 4:59 pm
Pat Frank, I thank you for proving my point.
You make the curious statement that apartheid culture is the same thing as enlightenment culture because it is (both) based on Dutch-Roman common law. Which is obviously wrong and which I quickly disprove by a very elegant analogy. Pizza and Bread are not the same because both are based on dough.
And now you say, one hour later, that apartheid culture has law derived from the Enlightenment. Meaning they are not the same. If something derives from another, they are not the same.
I am magnanimous and derive joy from your education journey!
Comment by [email protected] — December 1, 2023 @ 7:53 pm
@171 libte — thank-you for being fatuous.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 2, 2023 @ 1:18 pm
You have been found out my friend, i enjoyed educating you:-)
Comment by [email protected] — December 2, 2023 @ 1:26 pm
@173 Libte — here’s what I’ve learned:
* you are unable to distinguish a savage state from savage behavior.
* you are unable to explain why torture is wrong.
* you are uneducated in the source of your own culture.
* you are unable to follow the logic of a debate.
* you promote systemic sexism.
* you promote systemic racism.
* on exposure, you posture triumphantly.
All in evidence by your own testimony.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 2, 2023 @ 1:51 pm
You are mixing up the written word with your febrile imagination and eagerness to judge others {“he said X, that must mean Y! I have found a heretic!”}. I am not unable to explain the things you mention, I didn’t want to explain them to you. I was merely occupied with demonstrating your numerous thinking errors and state of perpetual perplexity. Maybe if you continue providing so much entertainment value, I can answer some of the questions you have trouble with. Should a physicist explain quantum mechanics to a dung beetle? This is a thoughtful question – unlike the ones you ask, so I encourage you to reflect on it. What would you like me to respond to, remind me?
In any case, I take pleasure in knowing that you have learned that (among other things I taught you) apartheid culture is not the same thing as enlightenment culture, even if both derive from the same law tradition. You committed a logical fallacy error that a Pre-K child would probably not make.
Comment by [email protected] — December 3, 2023 @ 6:02 am
@175 libte — a substanceless word-salad.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 3, 2023 @ 10:41 am
ah! you respond. Very well. Our journey shall continue.
What questions do you have at this stage, remind me? I am willing to share my wisdom with you.
That aside, I order you to tell me what is my culture, since you seem to know it? (preposterously accusing me of lacking education in the source of my own culture.)
Comment by [email protected] — December 3, 2023 @ 11:06 am
@177 libte — think of 174 as a set of challenges. Choose and start.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 3, 2023 @ 12:12 pm
The audacity! My feeble-minded friend, I am a very busy and important person, so please choose one question you would like me to explain to you. Let’s take things one by one.
That aside, have you now confidently identified what my culture is? I am still waiting.
Comment by [email protected] — December 3, 2023 @ 2:57 pm
@179 libte — you have had several opportunities to explain your position. But you have fled each one. In #179, you have done so again. Clearly, you can offer nothing.
Your culture? That’s easy. Your adherence to DEI evidences a mindless collectivism. You reveal a fizzle-pop of progressive fashion, showing no evidence of ever employing reason.
A serious socialist would be able to argue a position, no matter in an obviously villainous cause. But evidently you’re not capable of even that much.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 3, 2023 @ 5:02 pm
You can not choose one single question you want me to answer? I order you to do so, immediately.
What does my culture have to do with the DEI? What on earth are you talking about? Is nuclear safety part of my culture, is that what you are asking in a clumsy way?
I am not a socialist so who cares what a serious socialist would do or not do.
You failure to at least try to participate seriously in our Socratic dialogue is getting more and more apparent, you… you…. feckless gollum.
Comment by [email protected] — December 3, 2023 @ 7:15 pm
@181 libte – you’re not clever,
and;
you again fled the question. Empty does as empty is, libte.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 3, 2023 @ 11:04 pm
Ach Herr Frank, I am not fleeing the question, it is, as so often, you that is doing the thing you are accusing me of. I am solemnly asking you to pick a question, which I will endeavor to reply to, since I don’t have time to sift thru all the things that you don’t understand.
Now I command you, answer me, what does my culture have to do with the DEI? what are you talking about?
Comment by [email protected] — December 4, 2023 @ 6:54 am
@183 libte — continue to dodge, display vacuity.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 4, 2023 @ 12:40 pm
pick a question, comrade.
Talking of dodging, why are you refusing to answer: what does my culture have to do with the DEI? what are you talking about?
Comment by [email protected] — December 4, 2023 @ 4:18 pm
@185 libte – explain why DEI is not apartheid.
In #178 I suggested you choose from the list in #174. Choose the one that seems most important to you.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 4, 2023 @ 4:57 pm
You sassy elf! I ask you what does my culture have to do with the DEI? Don’t try your distraction techniques on me and answer the question!
I don’t see question 174, my list only goes to 36. As a token of appreciation for your willingness to learn I allow you to copy-paste the questions and I will chose one.
Comment by [email protected] — December 4, 2023 @ 6:29 pm
@187 libte – “my list only goes to 36.” Guess what, “Comments (187),” means libte.
You asked what your culture has to do with DEI. Your culture is DEI. So, answer the question. Explain why DEI — your culture — is not apartheid.
The answer is obvious. But my money is on, you’ll never get it.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 4, 2023 @ 11:55 pm
I have no time for guesses, you bratty sausage! We can chalk it off that you are afraid of my wisdom. What cacophonous cowardice!
So you want to apply maieutic methods on me, answering my question with another. I ask you to positively identify what my culture (which you are unable to name) has to do with DEI methods. You reply that I need to identify why the DEI (which you now presumptuously equate to my culture) is not apartheid. This is the way of the coward, a road that Herr Pat Frank has well traveled.
My answer is: nuclear safety has nothing to do with the Apartheid. Now prove otherwise.
Comment by [email protected] — December 5, 2023 @ 9:56 am
@189 libte — once again an answer empty of substance. You’ve been unable to rationally defend a single one of your purported positions. See #174.
To #174, We can now add:
* unable to assess the DEI-apartheid connection.
You wrote, “My answer is: nuclear safety has nothing to do with the Apartheid. Now prove otherwise.”
Simples.
Apartheid, like DEI, hires on racist grounds rather than merit. Racist quota hires necessarily bias towards incompetence. Incompetent personnel compromise nuclear safety.
Thoughtfulness, libte.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 5, 2023 @ 12:20 pm
Are you saying I was hired as a consultant at the DEI to work on nuclear safety on racist grounds? You don’t know my race so you are fantasizing again.
And what has this all to do with apartheid? The DEI is in France, you moron. What are you smoking these days?
Comment by [email protected] — December 5, 2023 @ 1:02 pm
@141 libte – thank-you for confirming the prediction in #188: The answer is obvious. But my money is on, you’ll never get it.
You clearly lack the most rudimentary capacity for critical thought. You’ll never get it.
But I’ll show mercy and lay it out for you: DEI in France (or anywhere else) and apartheid each discriminate by imposing racist quotas.
They are offspring of one ideological mother: collectivism. DEI and apartheid are family. They are 99.9% genetically identical. Totalitarian in essence.
The answer is obvious. But my money is on, you’ll never get it.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 5, 2023 @ 2:20 pm
@both: wow, your English is on a level that I rarely encounter, gotta start to learn real English..
…honestly, I was googling ‘DEI’, because I wasn’t sure I understand the meaning/use of it (in English), also because I did not understand the use of ‘t h e DEI’. I’ve got ‘Opus Dei’…ähem, and their office in Zurich, and ‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion’…maybe one was talking about the latter, not about ‘The DEI in France’…we allocated three countries now that are the real troublemakers on this and the follow-up thread: Ireland, South-Africa and France…forget about Israel, Iran, Palestinians…I’ve read someone asking whether the US, Bibi and Hamas in reality work together…https://www.voltairenet.org/article220078.html …and don’t care about the people on both sides?
Comment by Mikey — December 5, 2023 @ 2:22 pm
@193 Mikey — DEI is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These are euphemisms for censorship, quotas, and prejudice, respectively.
The program is progressivism until it has police power, at which time it hatches into the adult form, namely Communism.
The DEI experiment was extensively tried during the 20th century. The result was >120 million murdered and entire populations reduced to poverty and terror. See the Black Book of Communism. For you, “Das Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus”
It should be required reading in every high school.
See also Prof. Alan Charles Kors: Socialism’s Legacy: lest we forget video).
Comment by Pat Frank — December 5, 2023 @ 4:21 pm
Pat Frank, you cretinous creature, I told you I (used to) consulted for the DEI, the Direction de l’Environnement et de l’Intervention in the French Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire. That’s why I am talking about nuclear safety. You are really one of a kind, a rare bird.
Comment by [email protected] — December 5, 2023 @ 4:45 pm
@195 libte — you wrote, “I told you I (used to) consulted for the DEI, the Direction de l’Environnement et de l’Intervention in the French Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire.”
Which is a lie.
You never told me that until now. Prove me wrong.
Your #195 is the very first time you specified the Direction de l’Environnement et de l’Intervention in the French Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire.
You invariably wrote DEI, first appearing in comment #150: “I am self-supporting indeed, as I am independently wealthy (I am thought leader/futurist/DEI consultant…”
You never, until now, provided the meaning of the DEI abbreviation.
That said:
1) I correct the association I made between DEI and apartheid given the revelation that you internally meant DEI as the abbreviation a French institute of radio-protection.
2) I’m hard-pressed to imagine you in any field demanding technical acumen.
3) It remains true that racist quota hires necessarily bias towards incompetence. Incompetent personnel compromise nuclear safety. And therefore a connection between apartheid and nuclear safety most distinctly exists.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 5, 2023 @ 5:45 pm
Even ‘DEI France’ mainly hits https://www.dei-france.org/ Defense des infants international…fits fuzzily to what I’m listening to just now on vinyl 1:01 local time: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dwDns8x3Jb4&pp=ygUaZGFmdCBwdW5rIGFyb3VuZCB0aGUgd29ybGQ%3D …around the world…french house…
Comment by Mikey — December 5, 2023 @ 6:04 pm
@Mikey – here it is – https://www.irsn.fr/page/direction-lenvironnement-lintervention-dei
@Pat Frank – not so fast, I need to apologize. Clearly I created the confusion as you were in the right to assume DEI means what you thought it did. I need to remind myself this is an Anglo-Saxon discussion environment.
I leave the second point uncommented, but I agree wholeheartedly with your 3rd point with respect to racial quota systems. We find something to agree on, it’s wonderful!
Comment by [email protected] — December 6, 2023 @ 7:27 pm
@198 libte — thank-you.
Comment by Pat Frank — December 6, 2023 @ 9:43 pm
You’re welcome!
Comment by [email protected] — December 7, 2023 @ 8:48 pm