Karl

That's the churches proscribed version.

Europe would still be having these problems, it's only that our intervention has increased them significantly. We have been intervening rather than going to war. The West has lost its philosophic base that was once sustained by the Catholic Church- it certainly needed to be split, but we have in a sense thrown out the baby with the bath water. We have entirely lost our sense of objectivity and moral code. It's like a club that starts off being very selective and codified, but later just throws open its doors and thinks things can just sort themselves out as long as the management have a flexible attitude. So, instead of fighting wars against potential aggressors, we have been trying to convert them to our flexible way of thinking. The problem is that these people are ingrained with thousands of years of religious dogma. What's more, our own people are all over the shop, like schitzoid maniacs that are alternatively hippy happy airheads or narcissistic sociopaths that have no sense of a philosophical identity. It's just 'yeah whatever works'.

Think how cautious we are to let someone enter our personal homes. I am always alert the first time even if I know them pretty well outside. Yet, no one questions letting thousands of people into our country just because they are refugees. I wouldn't take one person into my house without knowing if they were good people, so why are our governments doing so ? Of course everyone wants to come to Europe, why wouldn't they ? It's like staying in a 5 star hotel with full room service compared to an open prison. Yet we didn't get it this way by having the values of these immigrants. We got rid of the state/ church link and floated religion as separate and as a choice. We don't seem to see that Muslims-even the mildest-are connected to a completely different religious value system. It's why they carry on doing what they have always done and want sharia law in their communities. They really do religion seriously as a way of life, not like us. Their religious culture is incompatible with the West, they don't share our values except where it allows them to get on with their values. They have to give up those values and ideas voluntarily. Not by force, or change management, but that they see that it has caused brutality and war in their own countries and realise the pointlessness of retaining that exact same ideology in yet another country.

Most of them, but then we don't always know if that was manufactured truth or real truth.

Once I looked into the shadowy world of Cecil Rhodes, the Fabian's, MK ultra, Oxford university, Yale, UNESCO and a hundred other interconnected groups I was minded to write a novel based loosely around multiple groups seeking common ground for their aims. I'm in the middle of it now. Makes it more fun as fiction than having to consider the reality.

Quite possible Brian. I've tended to avoid conspiracy theories as it tends to clouds things.

That's why we have a Government that is supposed to have taken away our need for violent action in order that we all live under one law. This isn't happening. Instead the Government has abdicated its responsibility to protect the people and acting irresponsibly and allowed a group of people to live in the country without any duty of care to its existing citizens. What's more they have covered up the crimes and are in the process of trying to calm tensions instead of arresting the miscreants. It's a bloody disaster. It's not as if they didn't know there would be problems as they already have problems in immigrant enclaves spread throughout Europe.

No, but I do have a garage equipped with a blow torch, mole grips, wire brushes, drill bits and a grinder :-0 If you are up for a bit of mechanical application ;-)

Does it matter ? If you give a man a whip to beat you, then you can expect him to become a expert at wielding it, to the point at which he no longer needs to use it. The memory of the whip is sufficient to keep you in check.

As I said previously "tolerance is appeasement dressed in glasses and a beard" This is the legacy of the subjectivist philosophy of Kant, Hegel and Dewey. There is no wrong or right and therefore morals are fluid. Once one applies that principle it becomes impossible to defend anything except for the belief that there is no right and wrong.

That's a shame. It sounds like you have lost your zest for living. :-( that you prefer a grey neutrality to the ups and downs inherent in living. I give only to those I share values with which means my charitable donations, both time/money are far more selective.

Nicely said, although being picky I would change 'pragmatic' to 'practical'. What isn't clear I think is that we have both left and right paradigms operating in the West and they are in a symbiotic collusion. The left is the socialised welfare system and its heavy burden of taxation. It includes state education, health, roads, pensions. The right controls crony corporatism which includes most importantly central banking and its banking cartel, but also companies dependent on government contracts such as Serco, Group4 and many others associated with keeping the crony engine running such as PR, marketing, media. We have in practice the Hegelian dialectic. The synthesis of which is the modern western democracy. This is why we have binary politics, so that people get a sense they have some control. It is really a false alternative in which government has become the lynch pin of Hegelian compromise. The question we should be asking is not one of left vs right, but what exactly should the government be doing. As it is we are gradually seeing a Western collapse, ethically, economically, culturally, aesthetically and far worse-philosophically. We have gone along with the flow for so long that no one has seen fit to ask where we are and why we are.

As long as you can put the government on a leash and get them out of everything except defence and law keeping. Then the tax need only be a paltry amount that no one minds paying. The tax would be set and permanent with no option to increase it-so no more inflationary money printing.

What's the point if it feels neutral. You may as will give it to a mass murderer, a wealthy person, a drug user or alcoholic. How can you know who to give it to ? There is no way to determine those in the greatest need in the way you describe. The only do gooder strategy is to give you a feeling of happiness to have done something that you feel has been worthwhile, because you could do it. It does not matter if you are giving money, working as a waiter, or building a sky scraper as long as you have pride in what you are doing, that you are beholden to no man for it and it is honestly achieved. If something is not giving you happiness then this is how you can tell if you are going against your own ethical standards.

Why do you assume everyone else is blind to someone's discomfort ? That's just empathy. Normal, ordinary, everyday folk have empathy. However we give because it makes us feel good to know we are helping someone who we believe truly needs it because they are in a short term slump. It is pointless to give to someone who is physically and mentally able to independently produce to feed and house themselves. Those type of people are professional beggars who are either doing it from a sense of indolent victim hood, or because conning people is a way of life for them. They are then no better than petty thieves that use your guilt against you instead of using their skill as a pick pocket. I give only to those who share my own values, but, through no fault of there own have fallen on hard times. If I cannot ascertain that they share my values I don't bother. I feel not a wit of guilt or empathy as I walk past, they are simply stray dogs in a street and I mind them not more or less than that. If you examined your own willingness to give to one and not another you would find it is not at all a random act. It's a rule you have. I don't know what it is, but look closely and see there is one.

But if you believe that you have caused the suffering, then whatever you do cannot make amends for that suffering and you are inevitably creating more by any action. You are trapped in a catch 22 and are powerless to do anything about it. Why not do your best to promote you own happiness and well being whilst being honest, independent of other men's charity and a productive person. That way, whatever you decide to do regarding a homeless beggar you are personally not a burden on anyone else. Your productive effort enhances the world and you can get a good idea by how much through the exchange received. As long as you are honest and independent in your life then you owe nothing to anyone and may give to whoever you feel is most deserving. The more you have, the more you can give.

I used to deal with business owners that felt like that. The result was that they were going bust continually and putting themselves and their unfortunate families further into debt and relative poverty. You can be more charitable when you are in a position to be more charitable-if that's the course of action that makes you happiest. You cannot give to others what you do not have yourself. Did you know that beggars despise those that give them money ? Why can't your life be lived in the present and have a list of virtues supporting your values. Isn't that exactly what you are doing by suggesting that ' another persons need exceeds our own' ? Isn't that a rule, or is it flexible for you and therefore you might not believe that in the next few seconds ? What is your role in the suffering of others ? How can you know it, never mind avoid it ? If you only live for the moment then why is it even important to you when you refuse to have rules by which to live anyway ? Isn't this a dichotomy? An unresolvable internal conflict ? Is it making you happy to think the way you do ?

One tiny fly in that report. 'They were speaking Arabic'. Did the doorman speak Arabic ? It's easy to assume they spoke both Arabic and French, or the doorman understood Arabic.

What if you regard the excesses as being your own life ? If your insight was built on the false premise that to be moral is to be altruistic, then it must ultimately be incorrect. Ethics aren't a compromise they are rules that you decide to follow because it makes you happier than the alternative. Do you feel happier worrying over how your spending/life impacts on someone else ? Are not you trying to live for them by sacrificing yourself. How does that help anybody ? The passenger aircraft serves as a good example. If the oxygen masks fall, the crew advise you to put on your mask before helping anyone else. That's because an altruist would attempt to help everyone else first. In doing so they lose their own lives and then the ability to save others. There is a great quote regarding the poor. "You can help the poor most by not being one of them". In other words do not add to their number, you can help them best by being one less of them.

That's the route to self destruction Nickolai. It's the evil of altruism taken to its logical conclusion. It will result in the conclusion that 'my being alive is resulting in someone's death, my survival is someone demise". The world doesn't work that way, or no one would survive.

What precisely do you mean by a shift to the right ? Left and right are both collectives only separated by a minor variation in economics -the right has the means of production nominally in private ownership. What we have in Europe is floods of immigrants the vast majority who are young males. Their culture is very different to that of the West and their religion is anti-western. This would be bad enough as something representing a potential flash point, but infact it's a real flashpoint. These people have been welcomed into Europe with a bill footed by the taxpayer. Now it's emerging that not only are some of them bent on jihadism, but that they are molesting and raping women and authorities have been complicit in hushing it up. What we have is liberal values of tolerance finding that reality bites hard. The feminists find their tacit support of open door immigration has backfired badly. Tolerance is really just appeasement in glasses and a beard. People are clearly angry- not of course the high minded academics and champagne socialists, but the average guy/girl on the street who has begun to fear for their lives. The reaction to that pressure isn't 'right wing ' it is the normal reaction of a person who must defend their own life and property against those who would take it.

It's not 'a tax' on the middle class unless you mean the public sector, in which case it's a tax on everyone to whatever degree the state apportions it. As its applied universally it falls on small and larger private businesses. These businesses make decisions about the cost of labour based on their particular business model. As the minimum wage is applies in the least skilled labour areas of their businesses they must decide if they are able to absorb the costs or charge customers extra. Each businessman will act differently. A large company might prefer to pay the extra if they only have a minimal number of low skilled workers, especially in a very competetive market as it prevents new start ups competing. However, we already know that Walmart and other supermarkets have been affected by the change. Walmart has shut stores and laid off staff, in the UK we have newly built supermarkets abandoned, zero hour contracts and customer operated checkouts. Small/medium sized business struggle the most. The result is that they will either automate-this is the common reaction and we see this in banks (cash machines), engineering ( software that allows engineers to accomplish which once took teams of tracers), receptionists (auto answer phones and ring through direct to departments). It means that the low skilled work is devolved into that of the higher paid and automation gets applied to prevent it being too much of a burden on their main job. Small businesses have to shelve plans to take on employees and will decline to expand- which can help the established businesses. Where very low margin businesses operate, they are forced to close up shop. Also, entrepreneurs will shelve businesses they would have started. The damage done is proportional to the amount the wage is hiked over the utility value. A small increase won't make much difference, but as it increases, more and more workers will find themselves unemployed in the longer term. A lot of research has been done on this subject and several papers have found little correlation between job loss and fixed pay. However this is because many employers try and make it work, they don't like sacking people. It can take longer than the research has sampled for people to be made redundant. It also doesn't include businesses that didn't hire, went bust, or failed to start. Coming back to your 'tax on the middle classes'. Walmart has shut several stores in response to the higher wages. Quite obviously Walmart is not the first choice for the well paid person, but for those having to budget. So, if it's a tax, it's often landing on the very people it's supposed to be helping. Not only are they without a job, but they lose access to the low margin, low price businesses that often sustain them. They are left having to travel further at increased cost to other stores, or to pay higher prices at existing stores. All higher wages do is to cut the first rungs out of the employment ladder, reduce competition driving prices higher for everyone including those who can least afford it, prevent businesses expanding, starting or shut them down all together.

'Far right' is a perjorative these days. Anyone that dares contradict the socialist state is regarded as a Nazi. Yet, rioting, violent socialists are just protecting some poor victims.

So, you agree with him, but you don't think the argument is strong enough ?

Seems global ?