Net zero nonsense

[Burgerman]

Depends what you mean by "far" right. They dont exist today. Maybe a few wannabes.

Big businesses want free or cheap labour?
Businesses are aiming to maximise profits, WITHIN the rules. The governments make these rules taht we all repeatedly vote against. If the governments ignore the population that repeatedly vote to REDUCE immigration and to control and protect our borders for the majority of our lives to dump this rediculous net zero stuff, to reduce all the woke and identity nonsense, and to dump all the huge government and high taxes. If not then in the end we get problems. Riots, overthrown governments, etc The public will stand so much and eventually just as in my ex gf country the public will overthrow the government. In her case milosovic. Then the changes begin.

Its started in europe with the various countries like poland refusing to accept immigrants (and are the only country not suffering the destruction of their societies, bombings, trucks driven over crowds, people threatened, shria law etc. They have non of that. The rise of the AFD in germany, meloni italy, reform here, etc. Look across at the US for e.g . Trump, massive vote win because he assured them that he WOULD DO AS HE SAID and that he would drain the swamp. He is causing much wailing and screaming right across the civil service, and media the woke left and he is doing it rapidly regardless. We are seeing the rise off what you call the right and the rejection of all this centralised power, the new socialist EU project. The EU will fail in the end and borders will close, deportations and riots etc will begin if not. Left wing and globalists will be rejected, the fake conservatives that never do as they say will get the boot as they did here. National identity and COMMON SENSE NORMALITY (the thing you call far right) will return.

But somewhat busy today with nurses, shipping stuff sold on eBay, dealing with mY bank that shut my online account yet again because of "fraud" (my VPN that protects me confused the bank, this is the THIRD time). And because when opened again, they shut it all over again same day because they think that crypto means I am too stupid and am being ripped off... All over again. Banks are f*****g useless. And 101 other things. And tomorrow LooK by the look of things same shit all over again so I can buy food, pay wages, etc.

[wheelchairer]

Thanks for the discussion, John—especially on the universe. I know philosophy isn’t your thing, but I see it, along with religion and early science, as humanity’s way of making sense of the world before we had the hard data. Even now, philosophy plays a role in shaping the direction of progress. You can have all the information possible, but without a goal or framework for interpretation, it’s like knowing the entire map yet having no destination.

After thinking more about our discussion, here’s how I’d put it:

The fundamental reason for existence is simply to exist. But within the universe’s history, we see laws that drive everything, and one emergent property of these laws is evolution. That makes evolution the closest thing to a "purpose" we can derive.

On an individual level, self-improvement matters because society is just the sum of individuals. However, real evolution—long-term survival and advancement—only happens at the level of civilization. We started as a product of natural evolution, but now we’ve entered a phase where intelligence and society dictate our future. Our ability to adapt and innovate is the key to longevity. That means our role is to push civilization forward, refining our knowledge, technology, and institutions to ensure long-term survival and progress.

In the simplest terms: we evolve as individuals, but our real mission is to evolve as a civilization, ensuring humanity continues to advance and exist for as long as possible. Science is the tool that makes this possible.

Is that reasonable?

[wheelchairer]

in fact I would go so far as to say, from our mathematics based physics understanding of the universe, this "meaning of life" is determined, in our 1 universe, of the multi-verse.

[Burgerman]

Thanks for the discussion, John—especially on the universe. I know philosophy isn’t your thing, but I see it, along with religion and early science, as humanity’s way of making sense of the world before we had the hard data.

If you dont have the data its not science. Its nonsense.

You mean like religion. Its no longer useful. Just like philosophy. We have better information, dont need to make shit up!

Even now, philosophy plays a role in shaping the direction of progress. You can have all the information possible, but without a goal or framework for interpretation, it’s like knowing the entire map yet having no destination.

I would disagree. Its all a lot of nonsense and hot air and opinion. And I dont care about that unless it affects me, but it does.

After thinking more about our discussion, here’s how I’d put it:

The fundamental reason for existence is simply to exist.

There is no reason! Why do you want to try and make up a reason? Its fine to say that there isnt one.

But within the universe’s history, we see laws that drive everything, and one emergent property of these laws is evolution. That makes evolution the closest thing to a "purpose" we can derive.

But theres the problem. Aain you are trying to make up a reason were non exists. The cause of our existence is the luck of the draw at the time the atoms condensed from the pure energy, at the hot start. The result is a massove almost empty universe. Or universes.

On an individual level, self-improvement matters because society is just the sum of individuals. However, real evolution—long-term survival and advancement—only happens at the level of civilization. We started as a product of natural evolution, but now we’ve entered a phase where intelligence and society dictate our future. Our ability to adapt and innovate is the key to longevity. That means our role is to push civilization forward, refining our knowledge, technology, and institutions to ensure long-term survival and progress.

Thats just something you have made up. You are trying to f
define some purpose. The universe and the planet couldnt care less. And once you are dead then all that wanting and trying to make purpose is also meaningless. Theres no purpose of aims, or anything. It is what it is. You dont have a role. Unless you define one for yourself.

In the simplest terms: we evolve as individuals, but our real mission is to evolve as a civilization, ensuring humanity continues to advance and exist for as long as possible. Science is the tool that makes this possible.

We dont have a mission. Define WE. The muslims for e.g think their mission is to convert the world through breading, spreading, death culture and torture, bullying, lying etc to replace or convert anyone thats not a muslim. So they would not agree with you. Me? I simply dont care once I am gone then its someone elses problem. I have no aims, goals, missions etc other than what you or a government or some religion, or I personally decide. But the universe doesent care.

Is that reasonable?

It may be for you! If you must try and define some purpose where their is non. And you are a part of that. Religions exist to give purpose where there is non, and to answer question about things that they cant possibly know. Followed by philosophers... They do the same only wasting yers of their lives trying to define and playing with words.

Stick to facts. If you want to do big things, dump the marxist nonsense since thats the exact opposite to your aims, and do a musk. Use your money to advance / protect / help feed the human race as he is doing.

[wheelchairer]

Hi John,

Thanks again for the discussion—we’re clearly coming from different perspectives on this, but that’s exactly what makes these conversations interesting. I understand your view on science being strictly data-driven, and I agree that data is the backbone of true scientific progress. However, I’d argue that the interpretation of data, how we apply it, and where we choose to focus our efforts are shaped by goals, values, and frameworks that extend beyond raw numbers. Science gives us the *how*, but we still need to know the *why* and *where* we’re heading.

You’re right that the universe is indifferent to us, and there’s no divine plan or cosmic purpose. But I think that’s where human agency comes in. Just because the universe doesn’t care doesn’t mean we can’t care about our own survival and advancement. The concept of evolution isn’t about making up a reason for our existence, but rather recognizing that it’s the process by which life, and more importantly, intelligence, has emerged from randomness. If we view evolution as a natural process, then it’s our duty as a species to steer that process in a direction that ensures our continued existence and pushes us toward higher complexity. That complexity, I believe, is where AI and advanced technology come into play—not as a replacement for humans, but as a means to augment and extend human capability.

I understand the appeal of rejecting the idea of a "purpose," but I think you’re missing the point. The goal isn’t to define an arbitrary cosmic mission, but to recognize that, as a species, we have the capacity to shape our own future. We have the tools to extend the survival of humanity well beyond the next generation, to safeguard against existential threats, and to continually evolve socially, scientifically, and technologically. Science isn’t just a tool for understanding—it’s a tool for creating a sustainable future.

I also want to touch on your comment about “we don’t have a mission.” In a way, we do—not in the sense of fulfilling some cosmic destiny, but in ensuring the survival of our species and advancing humanity toward greater levels of intelligence, cooperation, and innovation. The fact that we have the power to influence our own future is, in my mind, something that demands focus and determination. And while I understand your reluctance to embrace philosophical or religious viewpoints, I think it’s important to consider that we still need some sort of collective framework to guide us in a positive direction. Without that, we risk becoming lost in the vastness of the universe, just as you suggested in your comment about the map and destination.

I’m not saying we need to make up a purpose for the sake of comfort, but rather, I’m proposing that we take what we know—what science teaches us—and use it to drive progress with a clear direction. That’s not a faith-based mission; it’s a rational, data-driven imperative that grows from our understanding of the world. So, while the universe may not care, we should care about what we’re doing with the short time and immense potential we have.

What do you think?

[Burgerman]

I think that you keep saying we.
But everyone has a different opinion.
Which is why opinions are worthless.

Your ideas about what to do, how to achieve your goals may be the polar opposite of say much of the muslim world. Now what do you do?

We know the answer, its happening now, they want israel wiped of the face of the planet. Regardless of any 2 state solutions or cease fires etc. Thats not their aim. Not everyone agrees with your ideas.

[wheelchairer]

Hi John,

I think there’s another perspective worth considering here—one that involves not just the cold rationality of science, but the will of the people, the democratic process, and the role of emotions in human decision-making. While data and science are undoubtedly crucial, they don’t encompass the entirety of the human experience. People are driven by more than just facts; they’re driven by their values, emotions, and shared sense of what’s right. Democracy, at its core, is about expressing those emotions and values collectively, and that’s where I think the idea of progress, or "purpose," comes into play.

For example, let’s take the matter of war. If there were a vote tomorrow on whether or not to go to war, we all know the result would be overwhelmingly against it—regardless of race, religion, or political ideology. Why? Because as a species, at the core of our shared human experience, we all value peace. People know, deep down, that war brings nothing but destruction and suffering. It’s an emotional decision rooted in empathy and collective well-being, not just rational data. The democratic will of the people, when expressed clearly and without external pressure, stands firmly against violence. And yet, time and again, we see these emotions and collective decisions being overridden by politics or power, even though the data and science overwhelmingly show the cost of conflict.

This is why the question of the "purpose" or "mission" of humanity isn't just about data—it’s about human society itself. Democracy, in its ideal form, reflects the collective will, and that will isn’t driven purely by rational calculation but by a mix of emotional understanding, ethical considerations, and shared goals for the future. We all want to thrive as a species; we all want peace, stability, and progress. These are not just abstract concepts—they’re the desires that move societies forward. And while the universe itself may be indifferent, we, as humans, are not. We care about our future, about creating something greater than ourselves, and that is where the evolution of society and civilization comes in.

In this light, the "mission" of humanity becomes clear: it’s to evolve, not just in terms of intelligence or technology, but socially, ethically, and emotionally as well. We need to create a future where the collective will of humanity is aligned with the pursuit of survival and peace. Science will be the tool that helps us achieve this, but it’s the democratic will, the emotional and ethical drive of the people, that will shape how we use that tool.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts on how democracy plays into the survival and evolution of humanity. Best wishes, Mark

[wheelchairer]

I think that you keep saying we.
But everyone has a different opinion.
Which is why opinions are worthless.

Your ideas about what to do, how to achieve your goals may be the polar opposite of say much of the muslim world. Now what do you do?

We know the answer, its happening now, they want israel wiped of the face of the planet. Regardless of any 2 state solutions or cease fires etc. Thats not their aim. Not everyone agrees with your ideas.

Hi John,

I think you’re right that there are many different opinions out there, and that’s exactly why I find democracy so powerful. It’s not about every individual thinking the same way—it’s about creating a space where everyone’s voice can be heard and, ultimately, the collective will can guide society. You mentioned that opinions are worthless because of the diversity of perspectives, but I think the diversity itself is a key point in understanding why we need a system like democracy. Even when opinions diverge, there’s a common thread that runs through all of us, which I believe is rooted in our intrinsic nature as human beings.

I’m reminded of a story about monkeys that highlights this very point. In the experiment, the monkeys were given a task to complete, and for a while, they were rewarded with a nut for their efforts. But eventually, one monkey was given a grape as a treat, while another received only a nut. The monkey who got the nut, seeing the unfairness, became visibly distressed and even threw the nut back at the experimenter. The moral of the story? Monkeys—just like us—have an innate sense of fairness. When they sense that something is unjust, it creates frustration and emotional turmoil.

The same can be said for humans. Our desire for fairness and justice runs deep, and it transcends cultural, religious, and political boundaries. This drive for fairness isn’t something we learned—it’s hardwired into us, a part of our genetic makeup. It’s why, despite the wide range of opinions, most people around the world share common goals: to exist peacefully, to be treated with dignity, and to have the opportunity to thrive. When we face war, famine, or pestilence, it’s because we’re responding to the injustice of suffering, which goes against our intrinsic desire for fairness.

So, while we might have different opinions on how to achieve these goals, there’s far more that unites us than divides us. The fight for fairness, for a voice to be heard, and for the well-being of humanity is something that is woven into the fabric of our nature. Even in a world full of diverse perspectives, we all strive for the same thing: to live, to be treated fairly, and to ensure that our species can survive and evolve for generations to come. This is why, despite the differences we see, the democratic will of the people can guide us toward a common good—a world where we all have a voice and the collective will can shape our future.

I’d be curious to hear what you think about this. Do you see this drive for fairness as something fundamental to human nature?

[Burgerman]

I hadntt finished, read above!!!

Hi John,

I think there’s another perspective worth considering here—one that involves not just the cold rationality of science, but the will of the people, the democratic process, and the role of emotions in human decision-making.

I think emotions are the thing that causes bad decisions.

While data and science are undoubtedly crucial, they don’t encompass the entirety of the human experience.

well thats the point! They take away the emotions, the wishful thinking, and leave only logic and reason. Meaning LOGICAL descisions only. Thats a good thing.
When you rely on ideology like marxism, or religion millions die. And suffer all kinds of crap.

People are driven by more than just facts; they’re driven by their values, emotions, and shared sense of what’s right. Democracy, at its core, is about expressing those emotions and values collectively, and that’s where I think the idea of progress, or "purpose," comes into play.

At least half the planet disagree and are not democratic.
For e.g even the EU leaders are not democratic.
So actual democracy iv very hard to achieve. And theres no place I can think of that is.
And again if people make choices based on feelings, and emotions then the muslims will nuke the west and each other to get their 72 virgins tomorrow. Thats why LOGIC and facts beat bulshit and woo woo and feelings in every possible way.

For example, let’s take the matter of war. If there were a vote tomorrow on whether or not to go to war, we all know the result would be overwhelmingly against it—regardless of race, religion, or political ideology.

Again I disagree. It depends. If you are being attacked by a bunch of terrorists voted into power by some illogical gazans in a democratic erection, because many of them want israel wiped off the map, because thats what their ideology and feelings tell them, then I suggest that the people of israel would vote to het them hard. And so they should after the endless attacks, murdering babies etc. They are literal animals..

Why? Because as a species, at the core of our shared human experience, we all value peace.

Tell that to the Hamas Government.
YOU value peace. They value wiping out apostates, athiests, and most of all xstians and jews. For 14 centuries.

People know, deep down, that war brings nothing but destruction and suffering. It’s an emotional decision rooted in empathy and collective well-being, not just rational data. The democratic will of the people, when expressed clearly and without external pressure, stands firmly against violence. And yet, time and again, we see these emotions and collective decisions being overridden by politics or power, even though the data and science overwhelmingly show the cost of conflict.

I can show a bunch of wars and attacks that would totally disagree with YOUR opinions! Just like the hamas government in gaza.

This is why the question of the "purpose" or "mission" of humanity isn't just about data—it’s about human society itself. Democracy, in its ideal form, reflects the collective will, and that will isn’t driven purely by rational calculation but by a mix of emotional understanding, ethical considerations, and shared goals for the future. We all want to thrive as a species; we all want peace, stability, and progress. These are not just abstract concepts—they’re the desires that move societies forward. And while the universe itself may be indifferent, we, as humans, are not. We care about our future, about creating something greater than ourselves, and that is where the evolution of society and civilization comes in.

The salad is lovely. You want to try a bit. Not a clue what all that nonsense meant. But its obviously wrong demonstratably so.

In this light, the "mission" of humanity becomes clear: it’s to evolve, not just in terms of intelligence or technology, but socially, ethically, and emotionally as well.

Well hamas, would disagree with that. So would at least 30 other muslim extremist groups. They quite literally want everything but muslims dead. They dont try to hide this they keep on telling us. And they have a hell of a lot of non active supporters even in the western countries.
So these are YOUR wants, desires. Other people have different ones. And democracy really doesent exist even in america.

We need to create a future where the collective will of humanity is aligned with the pursuit of survival and peace. Science will be the tool that helps us achieve this,

How so? Science just tells us for e.g how to make matter dissapear. In a big mushroom cloud. For e.g. It has allowed us to build drones that can drop a missile down a chomney or through a window. Its PEOPLE that choose to do this. Be they attacking like hamas, or defending like israel or britain during WW2.

but it’s the democratic will, the emotional and ethical drive of the people, that will shape how we use that tool.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts on how democracy plays into the survival and evolution of humanity. Best wishes, Mark

Democracy doesent really exist does it. The us isnt a democracy. Its debatable but its certainly not a direct democracy and it is a republic. But most of the planet dont even get a vote. Or they can vote as long as they vote correctly. Or we can vote for a candidate as long as that candidate hasnt been shut down or locked up. Or like the EU nobody has or could vote for the "leader"... Or against her. So its not even an illusion. We voted to shut the borders at every election in 40 years. And its still rising. Votes?

[wheelchairer]

When assessing the true level of threat posed by extreme Middle Eastern groups compared to global military actions, a few crucial points stand out:

Muslim-on-Muslim Violence Dominates Extremist Deaths

Roughly 89% of deaths caused by Middle Eastern extremist groups (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram) are Muslims killing other Muslims within the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.
While these groups have committed horrific acts, their actual threat to the wider world is significantly lower than often portrayed.
In contrast, Western military interventions have led to far greater global instability and loss of life.
The Real Power Behind Global Destruction: State Militaries

The U.S. and U.K. military-industrial complex remains the world’s largest supplier of weapons and military interventions, directly and indirectly responsible for up to 1 million+ deaths in recent wars.
They have also been the primary suppliers of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and advanced arms, fueling conflicts around the world.
The arms sales from Western countries, including to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and various other regimes, exacerbate global conflict far beyond the impact of extremist groups.
Russia, China, and Regional Powers Also Play Major Roles

While the West leads in arms sales and interventions, Russia’s actions in Syria and Ukraine, Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, Iran’s proxy wars, and Turkey’s regional military actions have all significantly contributed to global instability.
China’s role is more indirect but includes arming authoritarian regimes and suppressing its own populations.
Conclusion
When looking at the raw data, it becomes clear that the greatest threats to global stability and human life do not come from Middle Eastern extremist groups but rather from powerful states—especially the U.S., U.K., Russia, and their military-industrial complexes. These forces not only perpetuate wars directly but also arm and fund conflicts worldwide, making the issue far larger than terrorism alone.

[wheelchairer]

Notice the Saudi Arabia on that list. Muslims armed and supported in targeting civilians, by Donald, the US, and the UK. Maggie Thatcher included supporting Muslim countries in war. It does question whether the people you applaud the election of share your belief about the threat of Muslims.

[Burgerman]

Its not all muslims.
Heres the issue.

You get places like gaza where most of them support, hide, and voted for hamas. Becase they re really only there because they hate the jews. Many sponsored by the iranian guard, the sae extremists that rule over iran ever since they took it by force 60 years back.

In iran, by way of example, the majority of the people hate the extremists in power as they treat the population brutally and they are controlled by them totally because its a muslim totalitarian government. So about 25% of the country extremists, terrorists, the population are really moderate muslims, xstians, athiests. They wait in vain for the west to help. By bombs, or whatever it takes for freedom. This has happened in many paces in the middle east, and then another extremist group turn up and take over with guns, kives and here we go all over again. Almost all muslim countries are rules by muslim extremists and no other type of government is allowed...

And its not about numbers its about totalitarian regimes and spreading terror in order to keep control of their own countries as well as attacking any place that they can get enough ghadis into. In canada a few years ago by way of example they blew up a night club full of muslims. Because they were not following the koran... That makes them the worst of all. They are supposed to know better. They particularly target children, schools, etc as that is more horific and stands out more to scare people and make them toe the line. Across the middle east there are different concentrations of supporters, moderate muslims, mentalists and terrorists (mostly in charge or proxies of the goverments that are, etc. There will never be peace until that vile ideology is ended. Or until it takes over everywhere as it is designed to do. They have infiltrated spain in the past and they eventually had to fight them and get rid. They are now doing it across much of africa. And they are trying to overwhelm the west too. Some on purpose. Most just see a free ride and easier life on their new iphones... In europe most of these are africans, mainly muslim. With a few more issues. Across africa theres a lot of mental health, drugs, murder, and general lawlessness. They seem to think that raping teenage girls is fine as it is where they come from.

[Burgerman]

The people I applaud are not doing 1 thing are they. When you vote for a government you vote for the least worst. If a government dows 500 things when in power and I like 300 of those things thats good. You cant get better. So far. I dont believe you are really that simplistic.

Unless you want a list of 1000 things I would do if I was a dictator?
And another 1000 that I wouldnt?
What about the 1000 where I was on the fence?

Just because I agree with what trump is doing doesent make him right on everything - obviously. One of those things is that unlike almost all polititions he IS DOING what he was voted in to do. Rather than the opposite. When that happens then democracy works. Bt thats not usually what we see is it.

[wheelchairer]

The people I applaud are not doing 1 thing are they. When you vote for a government you vote for the least worst. If a government dows 500 things when in power and I like 300 of those things thats good. You cant get better. So far. I dont believe you are really that simplistic.

Unless you want a list of 1000 things I would do if I was a dictator?
And another 1000 that I wouldnt?
What about the 1000 where I was on the fence?

Just because I agree with what trump is doing doesent make him right on everything - obviously. One of those things is that unlike almost all polititions he IS DOING what he was voted in to do. Rather than the opposite. When that happens then democracy works. Bt thats not usually what we see is it.

I accept that John. We all vote for the least worst. You think you have it bad mate, I literally have nobody I could vote for. There is no one I consider even old Labour like Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, EVEN Neil Kinnock, before he was converted to "new realism". There is no left any more..I'm very few alternative voices, organisations of which you have plenty. I'll come back to this.

[wheelchairer]

Its not all muslims.
Heres the issue.

You get places like gaza where most of them support, hide, and voted for hamas. Becase they re really only there because they hate the jews. Many sponsored by the iranian guard, the sae extremists that rule over iran ever since they took it by force 60 years back.

In iran, by way of example, the majority of the people hate the extremists in power as they treat the population brutally and they are controlled by them totally because its a muslim totalitarian government. So about 25% of the country extremists, terrorists, the population are really moderate muslims, xstians, athiests. They wait in vain for the west to help. By bombs, or whatever it takes for freedom. This has happened in many paces in the middle east, and then another extremist group turn up and take over with guns, kives and here we go all over again. Almost all muslim countries are rules by muslim extremists and no other type of government is allowed...

And its not about numbers its about totalitarian regimes and spreading terror in order to keep control of their own countries as well as attacking any place that they can get enough ghadis into. In canada a few years ago by way of example they blew up a night club full of muslims. Because they were not following the koran... That makes them the worst of all. They are supposed to know better. They particularly target children, schools, etc as that is more horific and stands out more to scare people and make them toe the line. Across the middle east there are different concentrations of supporters, moderate muslims, mentalists and terrorists (mostly in charge or proxies of the goverments that are, etc. There will never be peace until that vile ideology is ended. Or until it takes over everywhere as it is designed to do. They have infiltrated spain in the past and they eventually had to fight them and get rid. They are now doing it across much of africa. And they are trying to overwhelm the west too. Some on purpose. Most just see a free ride and easier life on their new iphones... In europe most of these are africans, mainly muslim. With a few more issues. Across africa theres a lot of mental health, drugs, murder, and general lawlessness. They seem to think that raping teenage girls is fine as it is where they come from.

Hi John,

I hear what you’re saying, and I’m very familiar with the history you’re referring to. In fact, I think we might agree on more than it seems at first glance.

You describe how many ordinary people under extremist governments don’t necessarily support those in power, but they’re trapped under systems of control, fear, and economic hardship. That’s something that’s happened throughout history, and it’s not unique to any one group or religion. Take the Jewish resistance to Roman imperialism—when the Romans laid siege to Masada, the defenders, rather than be captured, all committed suicide. The entire city was willing to die rather than live under foreign rule. Were they extremists? Or were they just desperate people fighting against a power that had taken control of their land and way of life? The Romans certainly painted them as the enemy, as dangerous rebels. But from another perspective, they were ordinary people caught in a fight they had no way of winning.

And this kind of thing has repeated itself throughout history. You mention how many in Gaza support Hamas, but the same could have been said for Catholics in Northern Ireland and the IRA. Many supported them, not necessarily because they agreed with their methods, but because they saw them as the only ones fighting against what they believed to be an oppressive system. It’s easy to say “just get rid of the ideology,” but when people are living in extreme economic hardship, under occupation, or with no hope for the future, they turn to whatever force claims to offer them protection or revenge.

This is where I think economic conditions are far more important than culture or religion in shaping human behavior. People across history—Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or otherwise—have acted in similar ways when put in desperate situations. Culture and ideology may be the face of the conflict, but the root causes are usually the same: economic deprivation, political instability, and foreign interference. When people have stable lives, decent opportunities, and security, they don’t turn to extremism.

So when we talk about these issues, I think the real question isn’t why does this specific group act this way? but rather what conditions create these kinds of movements, and how do we change those conditions? Because history shows us that just wiping out one extremist group doesn’t solve anything—it just creates space for another to rise in its place.

What do you think? Would be interested to hear your take on the role of economic and political factors in all of this.

[Burgerman]

When people have stable lives, decent opportunities, and security, they don’t turn to extremism.

Except hat it is not true with muslims is it.
They (the devout, the believers, the true muslims) do this to anyone than is either a kafir (a less devout or moderate muslim) or any other religion, and to athiests regardless. Most muslims are moderate. Therefor the enemy of the true faithful.
This is why its frequently a new recruit to the muslim faith, often a white native male living in the west all his life that bombs the children at a concert, then drives a truck over dozens of women and children. Because the authorities say they were "radicalised".. They werent.
But unlike most muslims, that were born as muslims that mostly ignore their religion with the odd nod towards it (so that they are not murdered, yes thats a thing for leavers of the faith in muslim countries) these new recruits study and read their korans. The religion is what "radicalises" them. The muslim religion is what is radical. So because they are new, exited, and enthusiastic they actually READ their books. And become true believers. That book tells them to murder non muslims. Thats what happens. Nothing to do with the UK or Germans, US attacking them. Nothing to do with "terrorist groups" although they nmay agree and help them. And certainly nothing to do with how poor they are!

So when we talk about these issues, I think the real question isn’t why does this specific group act this way? but rather what conditions create these kinds of movements, and how do we change those conditions? Because history shows us that just wiping out one extremist group doesn’t solve anything—it just creates space for another to rise in its place.

As 14 centuries of this same shit shows there is only one way. To destroy the ideology.

What do you think? Would be interested to hear your take on the role of economic and political factors in all of this.

PLEASE read the above...

[Burgerman]

Islam is different. Until you understand that its not just like other religions then its impossible to dicuss it with you.

[wheelchairer]

Yes you're right, if you only listen to the media and don't dig into the facts. The media owned by people like Elon Mosque, constantly drip feed bullshit. When you dig into the facts you find out that the number of people killed by terrorism in Europe was almost 10 times as bad in the seventies and eighties, nothing to do with Islam. Now they pretend all the crime is Islamic, when in reality.

In the U.S., the most significant sources of domestic terrorism have historically shifted over time, but in recent decades, the majority of attacks and plots have come from right-wing extremists.

According to data from organizations like the **Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)** and the **Anti-Defamation League (ADL)**, right-wing extremists—such as white supremacists, anti-government militias, and conspiracy-driven actors—have been responsible for the majority of politically motivated terrorist attacks in the U.S. in the 21st century.

### Key Findings:
- **Right-wing extremists** accounted for about **75% of all politically motivated terrorist attacks** in the U.S. between 2010 and 2022.
- **Left-wing extremism**, such as anarchist groups and certain radical environmental activists, has been responsible for a much smaller percentage of attacks, and their activity has significantly declined since the 1970s.
- **Jihadist-inspired terrorism**, while still a threat, has decreased since its peak in the early 2000s, particularly after 9/11.
- FBI and DHS reports indicate that **white supremacist and militia violence** pose the biggest domestic terrorist threats today.

Would you like a more detailed breakdown of incidents or sources?

And when you think about it this is insane, Terrorism against your own people. Having said that so is far right politics like Nigel Faraj, Eli mosque, And the right wing such as Margaret Thatcher and every political party since her have followed her policies, free-market immigration (Why? Quite obviously cheap labour, undermining indigenous workers wages, and undermining the influence of the democratically elected trade union.) And killing democracy.

Right wing literally means anti-democracy, and concentrating power in the hands of the few. That's why the right-wing use racism as a dog whistle to divide the working class, middle-class et cetera. Divide and rule, the oldest tactic in the book.

[Burgerman]

Yes you're right, if you only listen to the media and don't dig into the facts. The media owned by people like Elon Mosque, constantly drip feed bullshit. When you dig into the facts you find out that the number of people killed by terrorism in Europe was almost 10 times as bad in the seventies and eighties, nothing to do with Islam. Now they pretend all the crime is Islamic, when in reality.

As I have said till I am blure in the face it has NOTHING to do ith the number of people killed. Although if the intelligence agencies were not actively following and preventing tens of thousands then that too would be higher. Thats not how this works.

Elon musk? You leftis hate it when a single right wing person does anything. But its fine for the heavily vbiased left to push their agenda in colleges and univessities, across almost all the legacy media, and even brainwashing kids with nonsense in schools? How perverse your point of view is.

And when you think about it this is insane, Terrorism against your own people.

Again as I said repeatedly muslims are not terrorists. Thats the label the left like to add to make out that its just some radical organsed group of terrorists. Its not. Its the most devout muslims that are simply doing what their books tell them is right. And again you just repeated the same drivel.

Having said that so is far right politics like Nigel Faraj, Eli mosque, And the right wing such as Margaret Thatcher and every political party since her have followed her policies, free-market immigration (Why? Quite obviously cheap labour, undermining indigenous workers wages, and undermining the influence of the democratically elected trade union.) And killing democracy.

Lets start. Elon musk, nigel farage are not "far right". Thats what the loony left call them as a way to try and make people thing that they are extremists.
Wanting what most people want, a safe country, with its own borders, and with its own lasw based on its own values and not being subject to an invasion of rapugees and maniacs that are trying to take over each country is not far right. Getting rid of massively wastful civil servants as musk is doing, trying to run the country as you would if sane run your house, is not far right. You can keep on trying to tell everyone it is, but its just normal sane sensible thinking by the majority of the country.

Right wing literally means anti-democracy, and concentrating power in the hands of the few.

No it doesent.

That's why the right-wing use racism as a dog whistle to divide the working class, middle-class et cetera. Divide and rule, the oldest tactic in the book.

All complete bollox!

In the US trump must be "far right" then?
And that means that the recent landslide win of practcally everything means that the majority of the USA are "racist" then?
And thats why unlike the left, he is ACTUALLY DOING all the "racist" stuff that he promised. And thats why his aproval ratings are sky high then?
Why is it that the left like you seem to think you are right even when all the evidence shows you are wrong?
When all the votes and polls show you are in a minority?
When across this, the rest of the EU, and the USA all the polls repeatedly show people want to STOP all this immigration of the third world into our countries?

Stop digging.

[wheelchairer]

When people have stable lives, decent opportunities, and security, they don’t turn to extremism.

Except hat it is not true with muslims is it.
They (the devout, the believers, the true muslims) do this to anyone than is either a kafir (a less devout or moderate muslim) or any other religion, and to athiests regardless. Most muslims are moderate. Therefor the enemy of the true faithful.
This is why its frequently a new recruit to the muslim faith, often a white native male living in the west all his life that bombs the children at a concert, then drives a truck over dozens of women and children. Because the authorities say they were "radicalised".. They werent.
But unlike most muslims, that were born as muslims that mostly ignore their religion with the odd nod towards it (so that they are not murdered, yes thats a thing for leavers of the faith in muslim countries) these new recruits study and read their korans. The religion is what "radicalises" them. The muslim religion is what is radical. So because they are new, exited, and enthusiastic they actually READ their books. And become true believers. That book tells them to murder non muslims. Thats what happens. Nothing to do with the UK or Germans, US attacking them. Nothing to do with "terrorist groups" although they nmay agree and help them. And certainly nothing to do with how poor they are!

So when we talk about these issues, I think the real question isn’t why does this specific group act this way? but rather what conditions create these kinds of movements, and how do we change those conditions? Because history shows us that just wiping out one extremist group doesn’t solve anything—it just creates space for another to rise in its place.

As 14 centuries of this same shit shows there is only one way. To destroy the ideology.

What do you think? Would be interested to hear your take on the role of economic and political factors in all of this.

PLEASE read the above...

And the devout believers in capitalism don't bat an Eye when 200,000 children Are killed by sanctions affecting civilians, or where 600 children a year are imprisoned in Israel, And the millions and millions of people killed in life's destroyed in the Middle East for oil. And it's not about religion, nobody bats and I When Saudi Arabia is carrying out genocide in the Yemen, armed by the capitalist politicians in America and Britain.

I give no support to the tiny tiny insignificant minority of Muslims involved in terrorism. There is no excusing them. But the truth is statistically, Muslims contribution to terrorism, The targeting of civilians, pales into insignificance compared to the capitalists NATO countries, and even the far right.

[wheelchairer]

Yes you're right, if you only listen to the media and don't dig into the facts. The media owned by people like Elon Mosque, constantly drip feed bullshit. When you dig into the facts you find out that the number of people killed by terrorism in Europe was almost 10 times as bad in the seventies and eighties, nothing to do with Islam. Now they pretend all the crime is Islamic, when in reality.

As I have said till I am blure in the face it has NOTHING to do ith the number of people killed. Although if the intelligence agencies were not actively following and preventing tens of thousands then that too would be higher. Thats not how this works.

You keep saying it, but it is word salad. Makes no sense whatsoever. You think bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age didn't make anybody want to get revenge? Not one single person wanted revenge for Afghanistan? Not one single person wanted revenge Syria, Libya, e.g. it, Israel, a hundred years of intervention, murder and slaughter in the Middle East by the US and UK. If you had been born in the Middle East in 1 of these countries you wouldn't oppose their invasions, their slaughter of your people, you wouldn't want revenge?

Elon musk? You leftis hate it when a single right wing person does anything. But its fine for the heavily vbiased left to push their agenda in colleges and univessities, across almost all the legacy media, and even brainwashing kids with nonsense in schools? How perverse your point of view is.

And when you think about it this is insane, Terrorism against your own people.

Again as I said repeatedly muslims are not terrorists. Thats the label the left like to add to make out that its just some radical organsed group of terrorists. Its not. Its the most devout muslims that are simply doing what their books tell them is right. And again you just repeated the same drivel.

Having said that so is far right politics like Nigel Faraj, Eli mosque, And the right wing such as Margaret Thatcher and every political party since her have followed her policies, free-market immigration (Why? Quite obviously cheap labour, undermining indigenous workers wages, and undermining the influence of the democratically elected trade union.) And killing democracy.

Lets start. Elon musk, nigel farage are not "far right". Thats what the loony left call them as a way to try and make people thing that they are extremists.
Wanting what most people want, a safe country, with its own borders, and with its own lasw based on its own values and not being subject to an invasion of rapugees and maniacs that are trying to take over each country is not far right. Getting rid of massively wastful civil servants as musk is doing, trying to run the country as you would if sane run your house, is not far right. You can keep on trying to tell everyone it is, but its just normal sane sensible thinking by the majority of the country.

Right wing literally means anti-democracy, and concentrating power in the hands of the few.

No it doesent.

That's why the right-wing use racism as a dog whistle to divide the working class, middle-class et cetera. Divide and rule, the oldest tactic in the book.

All complete bollox!

In the US trump must be "far right" then?
And that means that the recent landslide win of practcally everything means that the majority of the USA are "racist" then?
And thats why unlike the left, he is ACTUALLY DOING all the "racist" stuff that he promised. And thats why his aproval ratings are sky high then?
Why is it that the left like you seem to think you are right even when all the evidence shows you are wrong?
When all the votes and polls show you are in a minority?
When across this, the rest of the EU, and the USA all the polls repeatedly show people want to STOP all this immigration of the third world into our countries?

Stop digging.

:lol: Every single media platform is owned by billionaires. Go on, I challenge you name single propaganda/media platform that isn't controlled by billionaires. You can't name one The comics, sorry newspapers, and all social media are a propaganda system for those who own and control them.

Again, French Revolution, where the term left and right came from politically. Those who sat on the right were for the concentration of power in the hands of the monarchy and the 1st estate sat on the right, they were the right wing. Those who sat on the left supported democracy. So by that definition it is factually correct to say that Margaret Thatcher was right-wing, and Nigel Faraj and Eli mosque is further to the right than Thatcher.

I am in favour of democracy, you are against it. You want to concentrate power in the hands of the few, the billionaires. You oppose the democratically and organised trade unions of the working class. You are antidemocraticBrett Alpha

[wheelchairer]

UC you just read their propaganda About terrorism in the comics and believe it to be true.

In the U.S., the most significant sources of domestic terrorism have historically shifted over time, but in recent decades, the majority of attacks and plots have come from right-wing extremists.

According to data from organizations like the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), right-wing extremists—such as white supremacists, anti-government militias, and conspiracy-driven actors—have been responsible for the majority of politically motivated terrorist attacks in the U.S. in the 21st century.

Key Findings:
Right-wing extremists accounted for about 75% of all politically motivated terrorist attacks in the U.S. between 2010 and 2022.
Left-wing extremism, such as anarchist groups and certain radical environmental activists, has been responsible for a much smaller percentage of attacks, and their activity has significantly declined since the 1970s.
Jihadist-inspired terrorism, while still a threat, has decreased since its peak in the early 2000s, particularly after 9/11.
FBI and DHS reports indicate that white supremacist and militia violence pose the biggest domestic terrorist threats today.
Would you like a more detailed breakdown of incidents or sources?


In the UK, the majority of terrorism-related incidents in recent years have been associated with **Islamist extremism**, but **right-wing terrorism** has been a growing concern. **Left-wing terrorism** has been almost nonexistent in recent decades.

### Breakdown of UK Terrorism Threats:
1. **Islamist Extremism**
- The most **lethal** and **frequent** source of terrorism in the UK.
- Major attacks: **7/7 London bombings (2005)**, **Manchester Arena bombing (2017)**, **London Bridge attacks (2017, 2019)**.
- According to **MI5 and the Home Office**, Islamist-related individuals make up the majority of terrorism arrests and those in prison under terrorism laws.

2. **Right-Wing Extremism**
- **Growing threat** in recent years, with groups like National Action (banned in 2016) and offshoots.
- The **first UK right-wing terrorist attack** was the murder of MP **Jo Cox in 2016** by a far-right extremist.
- **2017 Finsbury Park mosque attack**, where a right-wing terrorist drove a van into worshippers.

3. **Left-Wing & Separatist Terrorism**
- **Historically**, groups like the **IRA** (Irish Republican Army) were major threats. The **Northern Ireland conflict (The Troubles)** saw frequent attacks from both Irish Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups.
- **Today**, left-wing terrorism is virtually **nonexistent**, and IRA-related violence is much rarer, though some dissident groups (e.g., the **New IRA**) remain active.

### Current Threat Levels:
- MI5 and UK counterterrorism agencies currently rank **Islamist extremism as the top terrorism threat**, followed by **right-wing extremism** as a growing but smaller concern.
- Left-wing terrorism is considered **negligible** in modern UK counterterrorism priorities.

Now you won't believe that, Because the billionaires have distorted reality, reported in a biased way, because it suits them. The billionaires are laughing at you, all the way to the bank. No ideology. No politics. Just pounds shillings and pence drives to billionaires and the propaganda against democracy. The will of the people. I say power to the people, you say power to the billionaires, because they've indoctrinated you? With their media?

[Burgerman]

:lol: You keep saying it, but it is word salad. Makes no sense whatsoever. You think bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age didn't make anybody want to get revenge? Not one single person wanted revenge for Afghanistan? Not one single person wanted revenge Syria, Libya, e.g. it, Israel, a hundred years of intervention, murder and slaughter in the Middle East by the US and UK. If you had been born in the Middle East in 1 of these countries you wouldn't oppose their invasions, their slaughter of your people, you wouldn't want revenge?

To the contrary, many of the normal populations in many of these countries absolutely WANTED the extreme muslims that take charge of their governments by force, and their "soldiers" taking out. They too are under the control of the extreme muslims that we call "terrorists" The problem is that across these countries, and across the populations the amount of hatred towards the leaders or the amount of suppoert varies hugely. So theres no way to do the right thing. In some countries such as iran its well known that most of the population dont support their extremist leaders and they actively want rescuing even if that means bombing them.

In other places it may be 50 50. In others like in gaza its mostly supporters, which is why egypt have a very locked border with gaza and they will accept non of them as refugees. Because they understand the peopke that they would be letting in.

So again you show that you just have no clue. So I suggest you learn a bit about this stuff before having all your opinions.
And also again they repeatedly tell us that they want us dead. REGARDLESS of if we bomb them, or not. They have sworn to wipe israel off the map regardless of everything long before they invaded and murdered and took hostages. And even if we invite them into or own countries.

[Burgerman]

Now you won't believe that, Because the billionaires have distorted reality, reported in a biased way, because it suits them. The billionaires are laughing at you, all the way to the bank. No ideology. No politics. Just pounds shillings and pence drives to billionaires and the propaganda against democracy. The will of the people. I say power to the people, you say power to the billionaires, because they've indoctrinated you? With their media?

Rubbish. I cant even watch it for 15 years. The vast majority of the media are heavily left biased and make endless excuses for socialism, woke nonasense, and islam. Especially BBC etc. They are so biased that no sane person ever watches any of it any longer. The legacy media is dead. Pretty muCH. yOU TALK Nonsense.

[wheelchairer]

Now you won't believe that, Because the billionaires have distorted reality, reported in a biased way, because it suits them. The billionaires are laughing at you, all the way to the bank. No ideology. No politics. Just pounds shillings and pence drives to billionaires and the propaganda against democracy. The will of the people. I say power to the people, you say power to the billionaires, because they've indoctrinated you? With their media?

Rubbish. I cant even watch it for 15 years. The vast majority of the media are heavily left biased and make endless excuses for socialism, woke nonasense, and islam. Especially BBC etc. They are so biased that no sane person ever watches any of it any longer. The legacy media is dead. Pretty muCH. yOU TALK Nonsense.

So the billionaire owners the media (every type) are Marxist? Come on John name one left-wing billionaire. Just one John.

Yes the BBC are biased. showed footage during the miners strike of the miners throwing stones, and then the police charging them on horseback. But when you looked at the timestamp on the BBC's footage it was clear that the police attacked the -1st on on horseback, and the miners responded. So yes, the BBC is heavily compromised towards the rightWing such as Thatcher. Don't believe everything the newspapers tell you John. As I proved, The billionaires lie. Especially about terrorism.

Do you remember Jeremy Clarkson and Nigel Faraj 'supporting' the farmers(Most of whom would be unaffected by Labour's policy)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoA-9g4aLTs

You need to look at reality John. Facts and figures, not billionaire propaganda.

[wheelchairer]

:lol: You keep saying it, but it is word salad. Makes no sense whatsoever. You think bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age didn't make anybody want to get revenge? Not one single person wanted revenge for Afghanistan? Not one single person wanted revenge Syria, Libya, e.g. it, Israel, a hundred years of intervention, murder and slaughter in the Middle East by the US and UK. If you had been born in the Middle East in 1 of these countries you wouldn't oppose their invasions, their slaughter of your people, you wouldn't want revenge?

To the contrary, many of the normal populations in many of these countries absolutely WANTED the extreme muslims that take charge of their governments by force, and their "soldiers" taking out. They too are under the control of the extreme muslims that we call "terrorists" The problem is that across these countries, and across the populations the amount of hatred towards the leaders or the amount of suppoert varies hugely. So theres no way to do the right thing. In some countries such as iran its well known that most of the population dont support their extremist leaders and they actively want rescuing even if that means bombing them.

In other places it may be 50 50. In others like in gaza its mostly supporters, which is why egypt have a very locked border with gaza and they will accept non of them as refugees. Because they understand the peopke that they would be letting in.

So again you show that you just have no clue. So I suggest you learn a bit about this stuff before having all your opinions.
And also again they repeatedly tell us that they want us dead. REGARDLESS of if we bomb them, or not. They have sworn to wipe israel off the map regardless of everything long before they invaded and murdered and took hostages. And even if we invite them into or own countries.

Again I will deal with facts, instead of Elon mosques And the rest of the billionaires propaganda.

There are 50 Muslim countries in the world.
Countries Fully Governed by Sharia Law
In these countries, Sharia is the foundation of the legal system for all aspects of governance, including criminal and civil law:

Saudi Arabia
Iran
Afghanistan
Mauritania

Saudi Arabia, wouldn't be if it wasn't for western intervention.
Afghanistan wouldn't be if it wasn't the most invaded country in the world, Western intervention. The British have invaded Afghanistan 3 times why? No conspiracy theory Needed, Just the profit motive hard economics is the reason.
Iran wouldn't have turned to the Muslim extremist, if US imperialism hadn't supported dictatorship in Iran, like they did in Iraq, and anywhere else they could. Throughout South America. No conspiracy theory needed, just profit, pure economics.

Last of all, if 1,600,000,000 Muslims are all terrorist ideological, then they are incompetent. 1. They kill 20 times as many Muslims as they do non-Muslims. 2.The US terrorism, the targeting of innocent civilians, has killed more in a day, than the Muslim terrorists have in 20 years.

The US dropped more tonnage of explosive power and a poor little backward country called Vietnam, down was dropped by every side in the Second World War. Massacre after the massacre of civilians in Vietnam. "Sir, in order to save the village, we had to destroy it. "I could go on and on all through South America, all through Africa, All over the world, discussing US terrorism. The US is the world's number 1 terrorist. Driven by nothing else but profit. 0 ideology. The about politics. 0 morality. 0 democracy. Profit is the only reason.

[Burgerman]

Again like every time you claim things that I have not said and then try to knowck them down.
Tell me why is it that the left are so hateful of anyone with any success or money? Its the politics of envy. You would rather be in a starte of collapse like most lefty marxist countries end up than have any successful rich people. You are all so green with envy that it eats you up. You only need to look right now at all the lefty media trowing their toys out of the pram because of trump doing exactly what he was voted in to do.

And again. Muslims dont kill muslims. They the ACTUAL muslims kill the ones that they do not consider are muslims. The moderate ones, that they see as apostates, Not following the koran? They are enemy no 1. That they have been torturing, bullying, and terrorising across the muslim world, and the rest of the world when we let them for 14 centuries.

Again I cant be bothered fighting your straw man arguments from your lefty propaganda viewpoint.
And its not about bombing the middle east or money.

Across the world, people are waking up, rejecting your marxist lefty bullying and your left wing media and propaganda nonsense and the tide is turning which is why we now have reform topping the polls here, the AFD in germany, trump in the US etc etc with the left going hysterical and the majority public lauging at them.

Get a life, and learn a few things. As people do they change. The reason musk is no no longer voting for the left is because he LEARNED stuff. He watched them, he looked at what they do or try to do and rejected it. Like most sane normal people. Go trump!

[wheelchairer]

Again like every time you claim things that I have not said and then try to knowck them down.
Tell me why is it that the left are so hateful of anyone with any success or money? Its the politics of envy. You would rather be in a starte of collapse like most lefty marxist countries end up than have any successful rich people. You are all so green with envy that it eats you up. You only need to look right now at all the lefty media trowing their toys out of the pram because of trump doing exactly what he was voted in to do.

And again. Muslims dont kill muslims. They the ACTUAL muslims kill the ones that they do not consider are muslims. The moderate ones, that they see as apostates, Not following the koran? They are enemy no 1. That they have been torturing, bullying, and terrorising across the muslim world, and the rest of the world when we let them for 14 centuries.

Again I cant be bothered fighting your straw man arguments from your lefty propaganda viewpoint.
And its not about bombing the middle east or money.

Across the world, people are waking up, rejecting your marxist lefty bullying and your left wing media and propaganda nonsense and the tide is turning which is why we now have reform topping the polls here, the AFD in germany, trump in the US etc etc with the left going hysterical and the majority public lauging at them.

Get a life, and learn a few things. As people do they change. The reason musk is no no longer voting for the left is because he LEARNED stuff. He watched them, he looked at what they do or try to do and rejected it. Like most sane normal people. Go trump!

So you cannot name Marxist billionaire media owner? We both know you can't. It's conspiracy theory that the billionaires don't control the media, and there is a Marxist plot to take over the world. Again,Name some Marxists who are taking over the world. I bet you can't AGAIN.


It's not that you can't be bothered, it's that you have been destroyed with statistics, not flimsy conspiracy theories.

Elon Mosque control of media is purely driven by profit. And you believe everything he says without questioning. Every time facts and figures are given to you, you point blank refuse to even take a debate on based upon facts and figures.(Completely ignored the post of right-wing terrorism Being prime cause of terrorism in the US.)

I've already explained to you I am a millionaire. Here is a multimillionaire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9ROtVQt98s

Cold hard fact, the greatest boom in capitalist history was 1945 to 1979, globally based upon state directed investment. There was 0 bank collapses. The most successful capitalism has ever been.

[Burgerman]

So you cannot name Marxist billionaire media owner? We both know you can't. It's conspiracy theory that the billionaires don't control the media, and there is a Marxist plot to take over the world. Again,Name some Marxists who are taking over the world. I bet you can't AGAIN.

I genuinely think the question is rediculous. I have no idea what you mean, why you mean it wat your definitions are or what you are getting at and so have no clue how its possible to answer that. It just sounds to me like a typical straw man bunch of lefty nonsense that hate anyone with money. Whats your definition of meadiia owner? For e,.g sky news is an extreme left wing woke pro net zero bunch of bollocks. Sky news AU is the exact opposite. The guy that own it doesent appear to determine any of its political leanings in any way. And so what if he is rich or not? Why would that ne relavant?
Seriously I dont answer as it makes xero sense other than as a lefty rant.

It's not that you can't be bothered, it's that you have been destroyed with statistics, not flimsy conspiracy theories.

Seriously?
You are totally clueless.

Elon Mosque control of media is purely driven by profit.

Do you mean TWITTER or now X?
Quite the opposite. And what is it you hate about that word so much?
Is it because marxists detest the successful so badly are you all bitter and twisted like all the rest of your clan?
The single right ALLOWING (or is fact neither right nor left leaning) but no longer heavily left Biased media?

If so then I dont recognise that description. To me its one of the very few OPEN places that have free speech and nothing more.
Again it certainly wasnt for profit. He paid way more than he will ever get back. And he knew it. He was sick of the vast majority of social media being heavily biased and paid by the left wing government to suppress various things.
So no your argymemts make no sense. You really are clueless.

And you believe everything he says without questioning. Every time facts and figures are given to you, you point blank refuse to even take a debate on based upon facts and figures.(Completely ignored the post of right-wing terrorism Being prime cause of terrorism in the US.)

In the states? Maybe. No idea. But if you ask me its mostly caused by the intolerant left and things like the anti capitalist black lives matter. And of course most of the left see anyone that isnt a total marxist as hitler so I also would disagree with your definition of the "far right that you seem to label everyone that wants normal behaviour as.
So again, I cant discuss a lefty rant.

I've already explained to you I am a millionaire. Here is a multimillionaire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9ROtVQt98s

What possible difference does it make?????/

Cold hard fact, the greatest boom in capitalist history was 1945 to 1979, globally based upon state directed investment. There was 0 bank collapses. The most successful capitalism has ever been.

If you say so. But theres always 1000 reasons for everything that you either dont know or dont care about. And directly after a war its pretty hard not to have a boom. And then theres that term. Define boom.

So again, I dont know what point you are trying to make as theres way too little information. You just pick a statistic out of a book and thats it! I can do the same. Thats not how it works.