The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
by Bjinse Tue Nov 6th, 2018 at 11:50:06 PM EST
In particular I liked when they tried to bring a longer historical perspective on how the British Empire supported top-down interpretations of islam in order to replace local interpretations that took the needs of local society in account with local strong men to make deals with. Islamism as a tool to control muslim populations is an interesting perspective. Also ties in with countryside through central control.
Now, Blumi quotes Imam Ahmad in 61, shortly before the end of Yemeni participation in the UAR project:
Taking property by forbidden means On pretext of nationalization, or of justice Between those who have wealth and those with none, Is a crime against Islamic law.
The land reforms were in 62. You could certainly read the Yemeni decison as stemming from the Egyptian turn toward a new form of colonialism, and they certainly managed to alienate the Syrians pretty quickly, but I have no doubt that the elite running an agricultural country would need no ulterior motives to oppose anyone suggesting land reform.
We find that the rebellion permanently shifted the rebellion areas' development trajectories.In areas that experienced the rebellion, the post-warpopulation increases (compared to the baseline year 1820) remain 38% to 67% lower than in areas that were unaffected by the war, even after the passage of one-and-a-half centuries(see Figure 2). The long-term impact on the population by the rebellion is illustrated in Figure 3, which depicts the evolution over time of the total population and the share of the rebellion areas in the total population of the sample prefectures. The rebellion prefectures' population share has dropped from 34.2% in 1820 to 22.7% in 2000. Moreover, the rebellion's long-term effects on development are similar to those that emerged in Europe following its devastating experience of the Black Death (Voigtlander and Voth 2013). When augmented with favourable changes in institutions and fiscal capacity, the Rebellion facilitated China's ensuing Malthusian transition - that is, from the Malthusian regime of high population growth and no real-income growth to the modern growth regime of sustained income growth with limited population growth (Galor and Weil 2000). This conclusion is supported by several pieces of evidence. Based on the OLS and 2SLS estimates, in 2010, one-and-a-half centuries after the Taiping Rebellion, fiscal revenue per capita in the Taiping areas are at least 50% (0.6 standard deviations) higher than in other areas - a huge effect. This supports the war-induced state-capacity hypothesis. Furthermore, based on the OLS, Taiping areas have a significantly higher share of modern sectors - these areas' share of manufacturing in GDP is higher by 4.6% (0.4 standard deviations). Based on the 2SLS, the Taiping areas' average schooling level is 13% higher - again a large effect. These results support the Malthusian transition hypothesis.
Moreover, the rebellion's long-term effects on development are similar to those that emerged in Europe following its devastating experience of the Black Death (Voigtlander and Voth 2013). When augmented with favourable changes in institutions and fiscal capacity, the Rebellion facilitated China's ensuing Malthusian transition - that is, from the Malthusian regime of high population growth and no real-income growth to the modern growth regime of sustained income growth with limited population growth (Galor and Weil 2000). This conclusion is supported by several pieces of evidence.
Based on the OLS and 2SLS estimates, in 2010, one-and-a-half centuries after the Taiping Rebellion, fiscal revenue per capita in the Taiping areas are at least 50% (0.6 standard deviations) higher than in other areas - a huge effect. This supports the war-induced state-capacity hypothesis. Furthermore, based on the OLS, Taiping areas have a significantly higher share of modern sectors - these areas' share of manufacturing in GDP is higher by 4.6% (0.4 standard deviations). Based on the 2SLS, the Taiping areas' average schooling level is 13% higher - again a large effect. These results support the Malthusian transition hypothesis.
The Taiping Rebellion, from 1851 to 1864, was the deadliest civil war in history.
It is widely regarded by historians that The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths.[ A lower-end estimate is 18 million, while extensive research by Chinese historian Yu Xiguang ests the death toll from the movement is closer to 55.6 million.
Guest: Carl Zha The Taiping Rebellion was the deadliest war of the 19th C, maybe in history--between 20 million and 100 million died in fighting between a Chinese cult leader's army in southern China, and the decaying Qing dynasty . .
The Taiping Rebellion was the deadliest war of the 19th C, maybe in history--between 20 million and 100 million died in fighting between a Chinese cult leader's army in southern China, and the decaying Qing dynasty . .
The 1927-1949 war: "c. 8 million casualties total", plus "c. 7 million" under the Japanese occupation.
Beijing Institute of Technology recruits 31 'patriotic' youngsters for new AI weapons development programme Expert in international science policy describes course as 'extremely powerful and troubling'
Expert in international science policy describes course as 'extremely powerful and troubling'
the expansion of the European social system didn't go on smoothly, but in bursts. Over some two millennia, the European population grew from a few tens of millions up to the current 700 million people. In the process, it underwent at least three major crashes but, every time, it restarted growing. This bumpy expansion trajectory is typical of complex systems which tend to show what I call the "Seneca Effect," cycles of slow growth and fast collapse. [...] The disappearance of a large fraction of the population frees some previously cultivated land for forests to regrow. Then, when the population starts re-growing, people find the new forests as a near-pristine source of wood and -- once cut -- of fertile soil, and the cycle restarts. The new cycle may grow faster than the earlier one because society still remembers the social structures and the technologies of the previous cycle. This is the "Seneca Rebound" -- growth may be faster after collapse.
[...] The disappearance of a large fraction of the population frees some previously cultivated land for forests to regrow. Then, when the population starts re-growing, people find the new forests as a near-pristine source of wood and -- once cut -- of fertile soil, and the cycle restarts. The new cycle may grow faster than the earlier one because society still remembers the social structures and the technologies of the previous cycle. This is the "Seneca Rebound" -- growth may be faster after collapse.
And then expanding the economic model until present time without mentioning what happened with different provinces during the time after the studied period, but before the present time, is just irresponsible. It reads like a fishing trip for data that supports the theory without looking at error sources.
What kind of historians have written this? Oh, they are economists. Never mind.
The purpose of these polemical exercises is not to communicate "objective" facts. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
As with the American heartland, the overwhelming sense one has of north eastern France is of space and disconnection. Indeed, France east of Paris and up to the northern border represents one extreme of la diagonale du vide or the 'empty diagonal' -- an area of low population density that stretches from the north east of France to the south west. This is the heart of the heart of western Europe, and yet so depopulated that the geographer Jean-Francois Gravier called it the 'French desert'.
Not being flippant. It's just that most of the French population lived in a peasant economy until about 1950, and the north and northeast bore the brunt of destruction.
But the more reasonable answer is : rust belt. Those regions had the coal and steel. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
For instance, this map, showing population densities as of 2009. You can see that most regions in the north and north-eastern France are actually quite heavily populated.
I remember my geography classes from high school where the teacher would draw a diagonal line from Nice to Calais: above that line, the mostly industrialized regions with big population centers like Nice, Lyon, Strasbourg, Paris, Lille... Below the diagonal: the mostly rural parts of France in the west and southwest.
Now, the sparsely populated regions in France actually run from a vaguely north-southwesterly diagonal ("diagonale du vide"), encompassing mountainous regions and rural areas in Limousin and Aquitaine. Not surprisingly, other mountainous regions, like the Alpes, the Pyrénées and Corsica also have a lower population density.
In addition, the extreme right (FN/RN) vote correlates very poorly with population density: it is lower in the west (Brittany, Vendée) and the southwest (Limousin, Auvergne, Aquitaine, western Languedoc) and quite high in heavily populated North (Lille) and Alsace.
It's odd, irrespective of the actual figures, the area does feel abandoned. I was there a couple of times a few years back visiting a friend on a canal cruise and it just feels empty, like people just upped and moved away. keep to the Fen Causeway
According to Wikipedia, there was a limited migration after the German annexation - 50 000 to 130 000 or 3-7% of the population. Another 100 000 or so German speakers were expelled in 1921. And then you have the war deaths.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-Lorraine
It's odd, irrespective of the actual figures, the area does feel abandoned. I was there a couple of times a few years back visiting a friend on a canal cruise and it just feels empty, like people just upped and moved away.
However, as noted by demographers, départements in northeastern France have been loosing population over the past twenty years:
Between 1999 and 2006 all French departments have grown in population with the exception of the following seven departments: Allier and Cantal in Auvergne, Creuse in Limousin, Ardennes and Haute-Marne in Champagne-Ardenne, Nièvre in Burgundy, and Vosges in Lorraine.
Your feeling of emptiness is actually the result of desindustrialization in France's rustbelt. Allier, Cantal and Creuse are sparsely populated rural départements in the middle of Massif Central, and depopulation is not as visible there (great outdoors though).
there is a large swathe of France, running from the Belgian border in the north east, to the Pyrenees in the south west, that is unofficially known as la diagonale du vide (the diagonal of emptiness), which contains many of the least populated areas of France (other than high mountain areas), plenty of wide open spaces, and ample opportunity for hiking, rambling , cycling and outdoor activities.
The people who live there can look up and watch their rulers wing their way from Paris to Brussels, Frankfurt or Zurich, but on the ground, there's nothing much going on.
Haven't those guys ever watched Clint Eastwood movies?
I mean: one hour and twenty minutes from Paris Gare du Nord to Brussels South (Bruxelles Midi). Who would bother to fly?
(Except for French presidents: Hollande went to Brussels riding the Thalys once, but the security detail was too cumbersome.)
He wrote the paper in 1947. It was about how Paris concentrated all the wealth of the nation. (He advocated coercitive measures to fix that, including massive but selective immigration.)
But he didn't designate any particular regions as "desert" : just all of France except Paris, Lyon, Marseille and the Riviera.
The imbalance was so great that concerted public policies to attenuate it were undertaken in the following decades.
However, in the Macron era, you're either a winner or a loser. This includes territories. The abandonment of the "peripheral" territories and their inhabitants (those that cost the government money, one way or the other) is, in my view, the prime cause of the current "Gilet jaunes" rebellion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
As to Peterson: I read a long article over at Viewpoint magazine that makes a, to me, convincing case that he tends to misrepresents, or hasn't read the works of the schools of philosophy he critizes and a similarly long review of his book in Current Affairs that finds it, using extended quotes, to be full of unprovable gibberish. With those I'm reasonably confident that I haven't missed any big revelations, but I suppose if you have another article to demonstrate I'm wrong, go for it. I specify article since I'd have to scrutinise it cosely.
I'll raise you 40 Rules of Love by Elif Shafak.
I'm not claiming that Sufism is morally superior to fascist psychobabble or to S&M. But it's a damn sight more useful. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Stemming from his psychological background, Peterson speaks in a proactive language of participatory living, rather than in an armchair, observational language accepted as academically objective. Similarly, Marx said:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.
There is really much discussion on post-modernism on the so-called Intellectual Dark Web. Peterson's vantage is not the most accurate or interesting, but it touches the practicable impact and counter-resonance well enough.
How to learn to stop worrying and love Peterson? Here is one starting point. Listening through that BBC interview without much prejudice is fitting.
P.S. I remembered #3 mention here.
If Peterson is so vague, trivial, cliche (as those two snark reviews claim), would he have odds to be so influential?
If "influential" = "right", we're in trouble. Trump, for instance, doesn't have an ounce of wrong about him, anywhere.
Without wishing to insult you, there are an awful lot of dickheads around believing in all sorts of crap. Notoriety is no proof. I used to be afew. I'm still not many.
As for dickheadness, Mother Nature could eventually have a dickhead bias you won't protest. The latest highs of the Identity Politics (with #MeToo just over a year old) could, after all, be the last luxury of good times where masculinity has no approved value.
Well yes, if we insist on giving every bit of clickbait massive platforms. How the fuck do you think we ended up with Trump and Brexit?
He's providing yet another justification for regressive toxic masculinity in pursuit of money. I do not intend providing a platform for that shite.
Sure.
Ironically, Marx was rather just talking, while the Rockefellers, Carnegies were prototypical examples of changers at the same time.
Yet a few decades after he was just talking half the world was ruled by regimes claiming descent from his ideology and the biggest public works projects in Vienna still bear his name. Maybe he talked good?
I also want to note that the "intellectual dark web" is one of the more revealing examples of the mainstream pushing the branding strategy of those long suffering mavericks they are presumably harassing unfairly. Sam Harris still isn't cool, sorry.
Since I asked, I'll take a look at the article. I'll put paraphrases in italics and chapter titles in bold. Direct quotes go into "" and I'll put my comments into [].
First few paras: Introduction, Peterson is meaningful and intellectually stimulating to me[No examples given] Next few paras (Breaking my silence): All the Left is against Peterson and while I admit he is bad on social-economic inequality and I'm therefore not a cultist, there are mobs after me for saying this. The Downward Spiral: Peterson is obviously intelligent, yet the Left and journalists portray him as an alt right idiot. I'm scared of the activists for saying this. "We desperately need a revitalized Left that's capable of speaking to today's pressing issues of socio-economic inequality[On which Peterson is bad I thought?], environmental devastation, and spiritual malaise[????] in informed, intelligent, and inspiring ways. Instead, we're inundated by shallow ideological crusades dedicated to demonizing thoughtful conservatives like Peterson, who actually have some important ideas to offer--just not on the issues that properly concern the Left."[Still no examples of those ideas] Repositioning Peterson: I'm a life-long lefty yet I like Peterson. Maybe I'm not alone? I was a political science Prof so I have context. Peterson is not the American kind of conservative that only champions corporate capitalism but wants to understand "the human condition" "Rather, it is concerned with issues such as the fragility of cultural norms that help provide individuals with a sense of purpose, and enable societies to remain relatively peaceful and functional." Conservatives of this kind are conservative [I'm not even paraphrasing much here.] "They believe that there is such a thing as `human nature,'[Who doesn't?] and that it's highly fallible, and inevitably bedeviled by problems such as envy, corruption, and greed[Who doesn't?]" Conservatives are still conservative and think revolutions are bad Not Stupid: Peterson studied Jungian Psychology, he is still a conservative [Now we come to ideas] "For example, Peterson is concerned with how postmodern anti-foundationalism undercuts longstanding cultural norms. "[So he doesn't like Nietsche? The Viewpoint Mag article I linked is probably relevant to the way "postmodern" is used here.] "He sees the `social justice' Left as filling the resulting vacuum with shallow anti-oppression platitudes."[So the Left is bad, because it is stupid?] He believes that human existence is inevitably full of suffering and that it's not easy to chart an ethical course through life.[Who disagrees?] The upside is that the struggle to do so provides a vital sense of meaning and purpose."[Did he invent that?] "More examples could be given" [but are not] He reinterprets bible stories in a way that resonate with me. Doing so is not stupid. Peterson has said some bad things, I'm still not a cultist, but the Left is much worse and unfair in its criticism. They call him names and act self-rightous. Breaking Out of the Box: The Left alienates people, some of them will vote "anti-PC" The Left has left social-economic issues to the populist right. Things get worse for the middle and lower classes, the Left says nothing about it. "Yes, I am aware that many individuals and organizations are working enormously hard on such issues. Yet, as far as I can see, the culture war dynamics that have engulfed Jordan Peterson are overshadowing their efforts." [So the Left has no time for economic issues, because they hurl insults at Peterson?] Peterson would talk with the Left, but they won't.[At least we aren't willing to pay his speaking fee. I'm sure the Current Affairs guy would be willing] "Personally, I see him as a worthy interlocutor for those of us who believe that our societies need paradigm-shifting reforms[I thought he was against those? How can he speak for you then?], but reject the drive towards destruction for destruction's sake that currently animates the most extreme fringes of the Right and Left alike."[Way to assume motivations here]
"He sees the `social justice' Left as filling the resulting vacuum with shallow anti-oppression platitudes."[So the Left is bad, because it is stupid?] He believes that human existence is inevitably full of suffering and that it's not easy to chart an ethical course through life.[Who disagrees?] The upside is that the struggle to do so provides a vital sense of meaning and purpose."[Did he invent that?] "More examples could be given" [but are not] He reinterprets bible stories in a way that resonate with me. Doing so is not stupid. Peterson has said some bad things, I'm still not a cultist, but the Left is much worse and unfair in its criticism. They call him names and act self-rightous. Breaking Out of the Box: The Left alienates people, some of them will vote "anti-PC" The Left has left social-economic issues to the populist right. Things get worse for the middle and lower classes, the Left says nothing about it. "Yes, I am aware that many individuals and organizations are working enormously hard on such issues. Yet, as far as I can see, the culture war dynamics that have engulfed Jordan Peterson are overshadowing their efforts." [So the Left has no time for economic issues, because they hurl insults at Peterson?] Peterson would talk with the Left, but they won't.[At least we aren't willing to pay his speaking fee. I'm sure the Current Affairs guy would be willing] "Personally, I see him as a worthy interlocutor for those of us who believe that our societies need paradigm-shifting reforms[I thought he was against those? How can he speak for you then?], but reject the drive towards destruction for destruction's sake that currently animates the most extreme fringes of the Right and Left alike."[Way to assume motivations here]
Sorry if this is a bit of an unreadable mess. Please point out if you think I unfairly paraphrase at any point.
Overall, I don't see how this is supposed to convince anyone who is skeptical about the Lobster prophet. We have a lot of claims about thoughtfulness and profound ideas the Left can't ignore, but even after reading this I have seen no evidence of those.
(Apparently, evolution should be taught starting from lobsters.)
His stuff isn't new, or profound. We've seen it before. This is the "maybe this new climate change denier is right" school of argument.
I'm also not in the least surprised by his comparable popularity. Telling the right that the Left were the real Nazis is a pretty old racket.
With surprising little innovation since Buckley
Lobster guy has added a bit of self-help pablum to the mix to get to the top of the grifter pile, but only time will tell if he will flame out by defending pedophilia like other recent college grievance merchants or if he will hang around for decades like Ayn Rand's rotting carcass.
"Identity politics" is a keyword which indicates that the user belongs to the hegemonic group (typically a white male) and disapproves of the "minorities" getting uppity. Why can't we all just get along. With me on top. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
(giving women the vote in 1918 was the beginning of the end) It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Don't put all your eggs in one basket You go to the supermarket to buy a dozen eggs, but you take one egg out of the box and put it in a separate basket and then take both baskets to the check-out. And then you put the single egg into an entirely separate bag. Remember to bring an empty egg box - or an old jam jar with some cotton wool in it - to protect the single egg until you get it home and place it safely in the mini-fridge where you keep your solitary eggs.
Put all your eggs in the one basket and - WATCH THAT BASKET."
From your link:
A watched kettle never boils If the kettle is in full working condition, is plugged in, switched on, contains water and there are no problems with your electricity supply, it can't not boil.
If the kettle is in full working condition, is plugged in, switched on, contains water and there are no problems with your electricity supply, it can't not boil.
Ignorance is bliss Brexit.
Brexit.
Oh. Oh my. pic.twitter.com/WS6sxCP43i— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) 18. November 2018
Oh. Oh my. pic.twitter.com/WS6sxCP43i
Schengen is toast!
https://i.imgur.com/Lbf19bb.png Schengen is toast!
In terms of our collective wellbeing, the politics of pillage has been an unmitigated disaster. In economic and social affairs, we've been regressing instead of moving forward. But this is hardly surprising: the model itself is designed to favor a small minority of corrupt politicians and white-collar criminals. The model does not seek to meet the needs of the people, or to avoid violence and conflict; it seeks neither to govern openly nor honestly. It seeks to monopolize the bureaucratic apparatus and transfer public goods to private hands, making claims that this will somehow bring about prosperity. The result: monstrous economic and social inequality. Mexico is one of the countries with the greatest disparities between wealth and poverty in the world. According to a 2015 article written by Gerardo Esquivel, a professor at the College of Mexico and a Harvard graduate, 10 percent of Mexicans control 64.4 percent of the national income, and 1 percent own 21 percent of the country's wealth. But most significantly, inequality in Mexico deepened precisely during the neoliberal period. Privatization allowed it to thrive.
The result: monstrous economic and social inequality. Mexico is one of the countries with the greatest disparities between wealth and poverty in the world. According to a 2015 article written by Gerardo Esquivel, a professor at the College of Mexico and a Harvard graduate, 10 percent of Mexicans control 64.4 percent of the national income, and 1 percent own 21 percent of the country's wealth. But most significantly, inequality in Mexico deepened precisely during the neoliberal period. Privatization allowed it to thrive.
What ads in the New Yorker magazine tell us about the American oligarchy
Back to the front. One page after the champagne ad, we see a photograph of a smiling older white man, with the caption, "He loves helping kids. So he gives." He calls on the reader to "give something back to the world". My blood pressure rises when I see ads like this, because it goes to the larger problem of charity in America nowadays. If the system worked as it should, and if rich people paid their fair share of taxes, then the rest of us wouldn't need to beg them to peel off a piece of their income and toss it back to the people.
Oh my godddddd, I just found this Tory broadcast from 1988 trying to sell the Poll Tax to everyone.GAY SEMINARS!!! pic.twitter.com/ALdEvMVsQa— CAL ROSCOW (@calroscow) 1. Dezember 2018
Oh my godddddd, I just found this Tory broadcast from 1988 trying to sell the Poll Tax to everyone.GAY SEMINARS!!! pic.twitter.com/ALdEvMVsQa
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 44 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Oui - Jun 55 comments
by Oui - Jun 253 comments
by Oui - Jun 112 comments
by Oui - May 3181 comments
by Oui - May 3044 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2740 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 928 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Oui - Apr 2666 comments
by Oui - Apr 8107 comments
by Oui - Mar 19145 comments