91Èȱ¬

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

On Zimbabwe has Mugabe lost it?

Can he go on like this for much longer? Tsvangirai is outstanding as Boris Johnson blew up the other day he remains patient when people about him are being murdered and every step of his legitimate path is obstructed.

On HBOS £10 billion loss! I am struggling to believe that Lloyds won't get nationalised and if so how will that help the credit squeeze.

How long will Gordon persist with his posture of the recession/depression being an unrelated global problem to which he was not a significant contributor and he has saved the world?

Its all going to unravel very quickly.

It must be obvious to any intelligent people that the only thing standing in the way of nationalizing the banks and getting the money supply going again is the Corporate Nazi quasi-religion Brown and others subscribe to. Not much chance of a balanced debate and discussion from your alleged G3 team then.

Paul Mason " Wigan Pier trip "

"We're at rock bottom here. It can't get any worse. Eight out of 10 people I pick up are single mums, long-term unemployed, pensioners, long-term sick. They're not going to lose money in the credit crunch, plus things are going to get cheaper."

The above statement must prove the ludicrous false economy we currently operate in if the above groups find it cheaper to use a mini-cab than buses. It perhaps also demonstrates the absolute waste of money disabled access to public transport as prescribed by Ried under Prescott has been. No wonder our country is virtually skint.

#2; it's certainly going to unravel, but I'm not so sure it will unravel quickly; a painful to watch, slow-motion car crash is more likely, as Gordi's gang increasingly resemble Major's crew and their shenanigans, before the triumphal arrival of the Blairs' Rich Project in '97.

I admit I was truly chastened when reading Paul Mason's diary of his journey in search of Wigan Pier. The 23 year old man he met in Birmingham was earning around 11k a year gross; the same salary as myself - at the same age - in 1978. Thirty one years ago.

What have we done?

Like the guy said on C4 News this evening; we really must give up on total concentration on the fallout, bankers saying sorry et al and switch our focus onto re-shaping our economy, developing real jobs that don't have to rely on all these convoluted tax subsidies to make a decent living wage.

Re- shaping our economy with integrity and true, purposeful energy, not the cheap spin from Hoon about "new jobs" which are manifestly not going to appear in the numbers he has trumpeted.

"Jobcentre Plus" McNulty - the modern day equivalent of Wilson, Keppel and Betty - praises the new look of his babies, with new chairs and no more wall to ceiling plexiglass barriers; I hope he's put the partitions into storage, he may need to re-install soon.

"It [the boom] was not very kind to large numbers of people". No it wasn't Paul and, apart from one notable mini-series from Newsnight about life in Salford, those "large numbers of people" were forgotten by politicians and media alike.

I'd like to think that tonight is just the beginning for Newsnight to champion on a consistent basis the cause of these men and women who were conveniently forgotten in New Labour's rush to tickle the tummies of "masters of the universe" aka feckless bankers.

Why not bring some of Paul's interviewees into the studio to engage directly in dialogue with McNulty and the rest about their plans to re-shape our economy? Tony might suggest a re-design of the Jobcentre Plus logo, carried out by sub- sub- sub contracted Falkland Islanders. And for a change, leave out the "usual suspect " talking heads; just real people with politicians. Oh, and pay the real people appearance fees on a scale that equates to what the guests on Wosshow pocket; might do a bit more good.

#4; it might just be that the people using the mini cabs want to keep their local economy going as opposed to a faceless privatised bus route operator based in Middlesex; my guess is they have to use the minicabs 'cos the buses don't go where they want to.

Time for us middle class chatterers to get real - help us Newsnight!

#6

Don't know the bus prices in your area but around here if there are more than one of you the mini-cab always works out cheaper. If you own your own a small car it can be even cheaper, I know of cases where people on income support can run an (old ) car on it. I suppose that they will try to ban cars over ten years old next, one relatively local authority has already banned mini-cabs over ten years old irrespective of condition.

kashibeyaz (#6) "Time for us middle class chatterers to get real - help us Newsnight!"

Some of us have been trying. You don't appear to listen. You appear to think you know better.

#8 that's our little kathoey! We just bait the line and cast, then reelya in.

Some of you have been trying- extremely so.

I appear to be crushed by your icy put-downs.

Appearances can be deceptive, as you know only too well.

Get real, ma'am.

Paul Mason's item; as expected ; blink and you miss the real people.

Then on come the 3 Wise Heads and footle and footle and footle; what did we gain in understanding? Not a lot, except that Newsnight producers appear to be trialling the financial female's suitability for a presenter's post; Newsnight Scotland yet, Kirsty?

OBSCURITY WARNING (#9)

What are you on Kashi? I have been accused of obscure postings (guilty as charged) but I look like losing my crown to you.

Fun though. (:o)

How bad was Alistair Darling tonight on Newsnight?

I thought at one stage he was going to break down and cry.

Another thought re our beloved Chancellor. Was it just me or did his hair look like it was receding at as quick a rate as Labour's electoral hopes?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"And we'll convene our own G3 of Irwin Steltzer, Gillian Tett, and Will Hutton to discuss HBOS, nationalisation, protectionism, bonuses, and this week's performances on both sides of the table at the Treasury Select Committee and what they say about high finance."

Nothing new was said because the are still being avoided. Why? Because that's the nature of denial.

Barrie (#10) You're highlighting classic hubris/narcissism, where appearance is more important than reality. Incorrigible.

there are still 100s of Billions waiting to be invested once some kind of sandbox for the currently unquantifiable assets is made removing that doubt from the finance system.

Fear was mentioned. Naming it is the first step. The antidote to fear [and greed] in the markets is to have a trade plan [and the ability to articulate it -for gods sake get mandy to do it rather than the Gordon mumbler.]. Usually a plan that spreads risk.

So you could have a toxic bank, AND an insurance scheme AND more intervention. Put 30% into each.

And Print money till inflation picks up. Printing money isn't so scary. its the opposite of interest rate and so when the inflation indicators start to pick up you stop/ease printing. Its also quantifiable. We know how much cash the uk needs to survive for a year. We know how much will be generated through industry and so can make up the shortfall.

The game plan is to buy time. At some point the assets/debts will mature and be removed from the equation. 20 years from now the country should be out of it.

Kirsty harping on with ignorant questions about 'due diligence' actually put the chancellor in a sympathetic light. Remember posters had been printed saying 'This bank branch is closed till further notice'. The idea was to close them for a week. We came within 24 hours of that.

Kirsty harping on with ignorant questions about 'due diligence' actually put the chancellor in a sympathetic light. Remember posters had been printed saying 'This bank branch is closed till further notice'. The idea was to close them for a week. We came within 24 hours of that.

Paul might be having fun getting back to his red roots but we have had enough descriptions of the situation. Enough with the Private Frazier. The game now are the solutions.

By highlighting the ways out such as investment in sectors with growth potential such as feed in tariff, science, imagination/design arts and funny enough new financial instruments suitable for a post a deregulated market - such as public bonds for investment, risk capital bonds, promotion of co-operative movement [who were only sidelined because of people using short term debt -which is now not available].

so why focus on what cannot be done when one can focus on what can be done. That is the thinking of benefit. Don't phone a groan dial a smile.

This is offered as an exercise (and gift) for critics in our sorry, confused, spin-ridden times.

Self-critical bloggers may profit from the exercise of trying to identify what's gone awry.

Just remember, Natural Languages are intensional, and the intensional is not truth-functional.

Who profits from egalitarianism? Hint: securitization.

OF GRAVE CONCERN (#16)

I have just had a quick poke round on the web, to see if I could find an easy explanation of 'intenSional' and its hinterland.

Those who attempt explanation appear to be (metaphorically) so deeply inserted into the their personal orifice of elimination (symptoms: complex use of English, equations, symbols et al) as to discourage me from intense investigation. So:

(1) CAN the discipline that seems specific to the use of the word 'intensional', be explained simply?

(2) If 'yes' to the above. Is such to be
found on the web?

I enquire, because your postings seem to imply that I have led a life of vague expression (natural language) with, of necessity, confused outcomes.

Unfortunately your use of language and esoteric terms often defeats me. Hence my quest.

If nothing else, I feel bound to ensure my tombstone has nothing intensional on it!

barrie (#17) Most of Anglo-Amercian philosophy in the C20th focused on language because this is the medium with which we express propositions ('ideas'). The logical analysis of language reveals that many of our most problematic terms (the intensional ones, roughly, the psychological verbs) are not reliably subject to the rules of logic whilst those of (extensional) science are. In the end, mainly through the work of Quine (and Skinner) an 'eliminativist' approach was taken in psychology and philosophy whereby mentalistic terms were considered just a (somewhat supertitious) modus vivendi in lieu of better, extensional contexts and rules which it's the buisiness of physical/behavioural science to explicate, and whereby we might better manage our lives and those of others.

It is difficult stuff, not a five minute job. But it is revolutionary, and it is very down to earth. It effectively makes most of classic philosophy along with modern cognitive psychology (and much of 'common-sense'), supertitious rubbish.

Not a lot of people know that ;-)

Barrie (#17) The rule of the thumb is not to use intensional idioms in explanatory positions as these ae the very things which are in need of explanation. We can't exorcise them all immediately, but we can suspend them. Examined closely one soon sees people explain one intensional terms by resorting to another, a closed, useless, circle (see Quine 1960, 'Word and Object' Ch 6). Up until the 1970s this was pretty standard even in the undergraduate training of psychologists. It's all been downhill since then alas (intruders, if you know what I mean).

I'LL TAKE THAT AS A 'NO' THEN. (#18)

No way I am going to understand it. Hence: no way I can challenge it or put it to use.

Ho hum.

ANARCHO ERGO DUMB IN VERITAS

blair should be questioned about his 'light regulation' dogma. he also has responsibility for putting the uk into generational debt.

A LEGEND IN HIS LIFETIME (#21)

We need to question OURSELVES about Blair.
And by association, the USA need to look at their choice of Obama.

Blair strove to meet his childhood angst as PM of Britain on the world stage, abetted by Bush. The whole Machiavellian 'progress' from naughty schoolboy to demi-god can not have failed to enter Obama's sensory apparatus. Yet his mind has no place for such reality. Obama finds Blair just as viscerally attractive as Bush did, but for different reasons. If I were writing a Dan Brown novel, the triumph of Dark Forces would be looming large at this point.

These haunted individuals are driven upward by inner demons; they are spotted by political movers and shakers as 'winners' and funded for success. BUT WE ARE THE FOOLS THEY BUY WITH ALL THAT MONEY.

Blair's needs were paramount. Light regulation was part of his grand sell-out. Now he has been taken up into Obama Heaven. But Obama is the new Wizard of Oz. He has shown all the Blair attributes on the way up (oratory, charisma, smile, new dawn, promise - you name it) but Blair's most pressing attribute was NEED (unseen by the many) - to be met at any price. How will Obama's need manifest?

barrie (#20) Whatever you're doing, it appears to be widely appreciated, so don't go changing it. ;-)

IT'S THE LEGISLATION ****IES

barrie (#22), bookhimdano (#21) Focusing on their personal attributes is surely a distraction (an example of superstitious credit assignment. amusing, entertaining etc, but ultimately inconsequential unless they have done something irregular/illegal). What really matters are their party's policies, i.e their legislation/deregulations, as this controls their behaviours too. We can see how these were passed, and we can see the consequences. Who lobbied for the anarchistic legislation, and can we collectively do anything about that? Do enough of us want to do anything about that? Or do we just want a return to the economic status quo (balloon)? The latter is what I keep hearing :-(

#18, #19.......

GO YONDER

Beat us, O
Significant Other,
Gaspers in this bog of blogs.
We are meek and Thou art flighty,
Treat us like you're boiling frogs.

Jaded Jean,
Eugenics queen,
Beat us till we blog no more,
('Cos we're soooooore!)
Beat us till we blog no more.

Our problem with Obama is we're already damaged goods; some of us (not me or my pals) were duped by Blair, voted for him and quite quickly realised afterwards he was a shyster; if nothing proved it, his mortifying speech outside his church on Princess Diana's death - "she was - gulp - the people's Princess" - must have swung those still convinced of his authenticity. And many of us are really so angry with ourselves at voting him in that we view any politician with a sour cynicism.

Obama will be OK, Newsnight will improve and we'll have a hung Parliament after the next General Election; a National Government will form with Darling as Chancellor - (he really is fine- remember at the moment he's the pooper scooper for Gordi) and Vince Cable as P.M.. Jacqui Smith, David Miliband, Hazel Blears, Geoff Hoon will all spontaneously combust and Gordi will retire to Kirkcaldy.

That's enogh for tonight, children; off to beddy byes now.

By the way barriesingleton, the mushrooms are lovely.

COMPUTER DATING (#24)

It has taken me a while to catch on that 'Jaded Jean' is, in fact, a computer program, designed to trick my (or any) mind into treating her as a real person. So much now falls into place.

The insistence on precise 'inputs'; the return messages that completely bypass the previous message; and the almost beautiful trick of 'her' programmers - the hint of her real status - an antipathy to wishy-washy human attributes.

So guys (you will certainly be male) come out from behind that PC and reveal yourselves. Are you a bedroom whiz-kid or a top American University project? (I hope you are not little green men on the far side of the Moon!)

I will admit to some embarrassment that it took me so long. I just FELT something was amiss. INTUITION demanded that I yield to its superior fuzzy logic. Back to the tweaking-board boys - game over.

#26 barriesingleton

I do believe you're right. The gulf of separation from and antipathy to other human beings is certainly chilling.

As for the rejection of the arts and language, from someone whose favourite word is "narcissism"... The word may have entered the scientific domain, but its origin is a two thousand year old story, or stories. Fiction.

A more apt name might be JadedEcho, after Echo who was cursed by Hera, wife of Zeuss, only to repeat the words of others. When Narcissus rejected Echo her heart was broken and she prayed to Aphrodite to die. Her wish was granted and only her voice remained, going on... and on...and on...

53. At 00:03am on 10 Jan 2009, ecolizzy wrote:
I wonder about Ms Jean or is it Monsieur Jean? Has she been placed here as an Agent Provocateur by Newsnight to stir the blog! ; )



Hhhhmmm that's made me think about my old post Barrie!
I wonder if you're right! : )

kashibeyaz (#25), barrie (#26)



+

And I get sardonic odes?

Look into what Herrnstein and Murray warned would happen.

RadiantPoachedEgg (#27) Your behaviour, writ large, is precisely why we have been sinking deeper and deeper into this anarchistic mess over the past three decades, and why it will, bar a revolution in the way many now behave, continue to deteriorate.

There's nothing admirable in the behaviour you defend, it's arrested, infantile/adolescent narcissism.

RadiantPoachedEgg (#27) "The gulf of separation from and antipathy to other human beings is certainly chilling."

Almost 'Nazi' or 'Stalinist' some might say - best pay it no attention, revel in anarchism instead..........you've been led to believe that's good for the economy after all.

Perhaps the Tories welcome David Freud the " Arbiet Macht Frie " Corporate Nazi stock market parasite with the final solution for the disabled. No need for concentration camps, far more profitable to starve and freeze to death the disabled or thereby " economically inactive " in their " own " home. Typical of a party willing to sell out to Hitler in 1940, no bombing of German armaments factories because they were " private property " and all that.

Dear Mods,

I was really gobsmacked that my two posts yesterday didn't get thru - you might as well remove them now as the time has gone by, I wanted to enjoy some conversation yesterday morning but it was not to be. I have absolutely no idea why the posts were ocnsidered dangerous. I feel as if my entire culture and heritage has been outlawed and yet I read post after post of quite contraversial stuff. Well, enjoy your social engineering, I obviously belong eslewhere.

ecolizzy (#28) "I wonder about Ms Jean or is it Monsieur Jean?"

Note, this is, in fact a drift towards the ad hominem, i.e. presumed attributes of the messenger at the expense of the message. Is this a failure of discrimination?

doctormisswest (#33) "enjoy your social engineering, I obviously belong eslewhere."

Is social engineering not just a dysphemism for effective regulation/policy? Do you not see how subtly the anarchistic game has been played at everyone's expense? I suspect many of us do not, and that is why this happens. We mean well.

DoctorMissWest #33

Take heart! I had one binned the other day because I said "Muslims". When I amended that to "extremist Muslims" it got posted. Strange rules they play by so as not to offend, but once you get the hang of it it's OK. Compared to the Grauniad's 'Comment is Free' blog, it is a pretty wild party here! Social engineering is an excellent term, but please don't give up on us as people with lively and enquiring minds are valuable and most welcome.

Newfazer (#35) . But there's no telling many people, as they want freedom (not that many if they really ). Significantly, one of Skinner's (and Quine's) most infamous critics was the anarchist Noam Chomsky (who, disputably, did not understand either of them).

Anarchistic politics - .

kashibeyaz (#25) Do you appreciate that by sardonically describing me as 'eugenics queen', you are, if, as I assert, , entropic, process in Liberal-Democracies which I say it is, you are (perhaps unittingly?) thereby tacitly contributing towards the reinforcement of this demographic trend? It's an insidious, pernicious, process which the last few generations appear to have been strangely recruited/drawn to. It seems to have proliferated along with neo-liberal cynicism and 'alternative humour'.

I didn't advocate or defend any behaviour. I was pointing out that every time you use the word "narcissism" you are effectively making a literary allusion, and thereby breaking your own rules about language use. Unless you're suggesting the word has an alternative origin, or suggesting that the Greek myths were literally true. You're also borrowing a psychoanalytic concept from Freud, whose work I would imagine you'd disparage, for obvious reasons.

Unless you stop using the word "narcissism", you are tacitly endorsing the value of both literature and psychoanalysis every time you do so. That really isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and it's no skin of anyone else's nose, but you're demonstrably holding others to a standard you don't uphold yourself.

RadiantPoachedEgg (#38) "I was pointing out that every time you use the word "narcissism" you are effectively making a literary allusion".

You're not aware enough of your own behaviour. What you write is yet more nonsense as I've made it perfectly clear that the NPD reference is to which is a behavioural classification system, although what we refer to as healthy self-esteem is also essentially narcissism (albeit not pathological) - where it is pathological, and it's controversial whether the prevalence is genuinely increasing or is just a consequence of the recent (USA here we use ICD-10) official inclusion in the DSM. It's a consequence of how we come to be independent agents in the world in both infancy and adolescence, so we are all a bit narcissistic. The general prevalence is low, but this is controversial because whilst the nuclear family has been under attack for many years, most of the (Personality Disorders) appear to have a genetic component. Most of them think they are fine and they are highly resistant to help or any suggestion tat there is anything wrong with them.

All you've shown above is that you don't know how (the canonical intensional term) resides in (professional here) use, i.e. that you don't know how to use the term except in mythology. Try to learn something useful here rather than arguing from ignorance and acting the clever-alek.

PEOPLE ASSERT BELIEFS WHICH ARE FALSE, NOT TRUE - HENCE BELIEF IS PROBLEMATIC

RadiantPoachedEgg (#38) "you're demonstrably holding others to a standard you don't uphold yourself."

You've invalidly inferred that too. The point about intension is a logical one. It affects us all, as we all speak Natural Language, and part of that is folk psychological. The point to grasp is that there is a constant process whereby we endeavour to improve our folklore (folk science/common-sense) through empirical research. It's a process of pulling ourselves up by out bootstraps to some extent. Along the way, we jetison some folklore. Quine used the image of Theseus' ship where sailors replaced old planks whilst still at sea to give an accurate idea of how pragmatic this is. We all so this to some extent, or at least, the rational, non-bigots amongst us do. Yet some of us still talk and think in ways which are highly superstitious, refusing to listen to reason for the sake of appearances. One can see this very easily just by considering how many people believe in astrology, angel-reading, that we can raise IQ through education, etc etc - which is beginning to look like modern Lamarkism - but it's even worse than that - some of the examples I have cited in the blog clearly show that otherwise 'bright', articulate people will argue from ignorance even when they're provided with material which one might expect them to reassess the propositions which they hold true - i.e their beliefs. Training in science is all about how to cope with this difficulty.

#37; yet another typo? "(perhaps unittingly)" - is this "intensional" irony, or some allusion to "dysgenesis"? Or could it be.....Oldtimers'?

Honest, I've never "nitted" in my puff!

RadiantPoachedEgg; why bother with H.E.M.? Engaging with Her Eugenic Majesty in dialogue is futile - read the myth of Sisyphus, it'll make more sense.

My theory is it's a kathoey.

Time to get things done; now Obama's on his way, Gordi will soon follow; remind me - who are the "Do Nothing" Party, Gordi?

IQ is like BMI; made up to corral us; there's more to education than improving IQ; in fact the connection is fatuous.

And don't forget your alcohol intake limits and your salt intake and your hydrogenated fats and MSG - stay indoors, draw the blinds and WE'LL tell you when it's safe to come out.

kashibeyaz (#41) "Engaging with Her Eugenic Majesty in dialogue is futile.......

...there's more to education than improving IQ"

But you don't engage do you? That's the problem. You miss the points and so don't 'engage'. When that's pointed out to you, you clearly don't like it and turn to posting abusive nonsense instead. Finding others who behave the same way just makes you look incorrigible/silly/narcissistic.

Education does not improve IQ. Try to grasp that, and you might start to grasp the rest (e.g. the very bad news in Leitch and ETS for our economies).

#32; COMPLETELY AGREE!

Lord Snooty has been reasonably clever up till now; if this comes to "fruitition" as they say in Yorkshire, it will be bad news for him and his Bullingdon clan.

Democracy; Freud is bribed by a seat in the Lords and a shadow post on Welfare; this is an ex-banker, nom de chien!

Bad judgement, Snooty; had you been talking to George again? Best not to. Always has the smell of a return to the Nasty Party. Or maybe you met Mandy at the polo?

#42; "posting abusive nonsense"; been looking in the mirror again, haven't you?

EDUCATION DOES NOT IMPROVE IQ; 'cos the two are not linked, in fact IQ is as out-dated as these SILLY links you keep peddling.

Some advice; remember happiness can't buy you money and if you have stained glass windows it's probably caused by the pigeons.

Who knows what wonders await us all in the zygotic, polyphemic mire of Monday's episode?
Laugh? I nearly did.

kashibeyaz (#25) A good post (mostly), but surely, most of New Labour was premised on fantasy/spin? Theatre is what they do. The critical question now is whether we can create a viable economy (with the human capital we now have) without it? Too many still appear hell bent on restoring the status quo whilst also acknowledging what was wrong with it.

kashibeyaz (#44) "IQ is as out-dated as these SILLY links you keep peddling."

ETS and Leitch are out of date?

Why do the majority of UK schools use the NFER CAT (or something like it) to predict Key Stage/GCSE results with an r=0.7? Why are the UK SATs tests essentially constructed by the NAA as IQ proxies? Why does the USA use cognitive ability tests (IQ tests) within the NCLB framework (their version of ECM), and why does nearly every other educational testing service in the developed world use such tests?

Most tellingly/importantly of all, why do people such as yourself have the appalling audacity/arrogance to make such absolutely false assertions without any embarrassment?

Answer: ignorance.

#46; WHY, WHY, WHY and WHY?

Because they're told to; Emperor's new clothes and all that.

Final WHY? - only to get you riled, really, 'cos it's such a spectacle.

Tonight on Newsnight; PLEASE some real people telling their stories and asking "Discworlders" such as McNulty - soon to be Lord McNulty of New Red Chairs for Jobcentre Plus - if they are REALLY interested?

kashibeyaz (#47) "only to get you riled, really, 'cos it's such a spectacle."

The only spectacle here is that of your self-centred parading which I've just helped you to publicly demonstrate. You've shown yourself to be incapable of grasping/acknowledging the difference between sources of reliable empirical evidence from sources of political spin, even when this is pointed out.

That's a fact.

Interesting piece by Monbiot in the Guardian.

"
If the Mail on Sunday is to be believed – always a big if – the new unit does exactly what NETCU was doing until Christmas: conflating peaceful protest with violent extremism. Among its targets, apparently, are "environmental groups involved in direct action such as Plane Stupid".

The paper reports that:

The CIU's role will be similar to the 'counter subversion' functions formerly carried out by MI5. The so-called "reds under the bed" operations focused on trade unionists and peace campaigners

There's progress for you: if the report is true, the new unit appears to be taking us back to the days when the security forces played a blatantly partisan role in seeking to destroy progressive politics.
".

So Emma Thompson is under suspicion but groups whose ideologies are associated with violence are not?

Skewed policy making.

kashibeyaz (#47) "Because they're told to; Emperor's new clothes and all that."

Precisely the opposite of what is true. The sober fact is that after decades of efforts to raise achievement and 'address' offending behaviour etc, we have absolutely no good evidence that we can do so (see the Charles Murray - Jim Flynn debate available at the - believe it or not, these people (like most in these professions) wanted to be able to raise achievement and narrow/remove the B-W attainment gap, it's just that the money and efforts spent trying to do so appears to have been largely wasted, which some justly argue is now fraudulent if there is no reliable evidence for any effect and yet people persist in stating that there is). It is invariably those who do not work in any of the relevant fields and who have no knowledge of the empirical evidence who assert otherwise. Why is that?

Perhaps you and others who believe otherwise might give all this some serious thought given the here in 2006 and the in the USA in 2007 instead of indulging in creative writing, and name-calling when that is challenged as vacuous.

#50 JadedJean

"Perhaps you and others who believe otherwise might give all this some serious thought given the Leitch Review here in 2006 and the ETS report in the USA in 2007 instead of indulging in creative writing, and name-calling when that is challenged as vacuous"

Pots and kettles.

You neglected to mention that the huge majority of mainstream scientists who recognise that genetic variation is greater within a race than between races (i.e. there is no basis for race "realism") are "all Jews".

As you think Hitler did "good things and bad things" and that the "times demanded" their actions in the 30's the mind boggles as to what you may think the "times demand" today.

Personally I think >99% of the UK population are keen not to find out!

We are happy as a multi-cultural society.

#27 RadiantPoachedEgg

Great login name and I SO hear what you are saying!

#5 kashibeyaz

I am sure you have heard the calls by the courageous former HBOS Risk manager who got fired by Sir James Crosby for Brown to resign.

The media (Newsnight?) don't seem to be following up on it but in my world Brown certainly has a case to answer and could have headed off problems by a prompt apology instead of "I saved the world".

#48 Jaded_Jean

"self-centred parading"!

You portray yourself as the intellectual Colossus, who could probably just demand a Nobel, who alone knows that race "realism" is based on science.

When you get challenged as to why the mainstream scientists don't agree you say they are "all Jews" and far right race "realists" can't get jobs (shock horror).

But if you really believe you do have a strong scientific argument would you not be better talking to New Scientist where the audience are "on your level"?

You won't because you know you would be ripped to shreds.

We both know you don't really believe your own arguments deep down and that it is just political propaganda that you are trying to give intellectual credibility by using this site.

It is futile because I don't see any evidence that anybody is swayed by your "facts".

As I have said before its like Hemingway writing of Mussolini reading a large Tome to look profound - and it was an upside down French-English dictionary!

Some things never change.

"Thanks for making me smile!".

If Newsnight should follow up Monbiot (my #49) why not extend that historically.

Did the establishment (probably due to Soviet penetration) really believe that Wilson was a spy?

Whilst these people chase(d) about looking for "reads under the beds" and harassing the innocent do they miss the odd 9/11 and 7/7?

Do a few heads need banging together?

Is Obama going to change the alliance intelligence strategy?

Go1 #51

"Personally I think >99% of the UK population are keen not to find out!"

Don't make assumptions. There are many who really would like to find out what actually happened but, oddly, we get little help from those who claim to 'know'. They don't answer our questions with evidence, only rhetoric.

"We are happy as a multi-cultural society."

You may be, others are not. Mainly because we can work out what the long term effects will be.

thegangofone (#54) "When you get challenged as to why the mainstream scientists don't agree you say they are "all Jews" and far right race "realists" can't get jobs (shock horror)."

As I have said before, whilst a good proportion of those who have taken a Marxist line in science have been Jewish (e.g. Rose, Kamin and Lewontin) there are others like Herrnstein, Gottfredson and Jensen who are Jewish or part Jewish. As I have also said, since it has become more widely accepted that Jews have on average a higher IQ than the average European Gentile (mainly verbal) there has recently been less opposition to group differences having a possible genetic basis.

It is true that life has been made rather difficult in academia for those who have been researching sex and other group differences. This should be a cause for wide concern not celebration given that these differences show up in every countries' national tests surely? This is all government published data too, so I really do't see your point as it is no longer controversial. What is of concern are the future consequences for our economy and social stability if we ignore this. You and others must try to face up to this and stop trying to censor it. This is the reason why I have posted links to the ETS report and to the Leitch Review. Have a close look at these.

Revealing article in the Observer describes the culture inside RBS under Fred the Shred's regime. People only feel safe to comment now he's off the premises and understandably so. Anyone who challenged or questioned the plan was not only negative but treacherous and highly likely to take the high road.

How do these people get to become such wielders of influence?Who appoints them to such important positions and why?

It's like the Meryl Streep character in "The Devil Wears Prada" - how did such a character become the boss?

And in this day and age, how come so many organisations seem to be run like a cross between a medieval fiefdom and the Spanish Inquisition?

Plenty here surely for Newsnight to chew over!

kashibeyaz #58

Why are you asking these questions? JJ has posted the answers so many times now. Even I can work it out. Just follow the links...

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]kashibeyaz (#58) "How do these people get to become such wielders of influence?Who appoints them to such important positions and why?"

One suggestion:-

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]They share half their Factor Structure with Narcissists. They are very much in demand in Liberal-Democracies .