Errant Bard

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Errant Bard

  • Rank
    Insane precursor of bad business
  • Birthday 05/29/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    South of London, north of Barcelona

Recent Profile Visitors

12,981 profile views
  1. "Family Values" What now?

    And yet they had at least two kids?
  2. A Single Country in the World

    Hmm, did you miss the latest news from Europe?
  3. china mieville

    Kraken is awesome fun, I love it. (For the record )
  4. A Single Country in the World

    Kinda like Europe, the integration policy works well, the US even proposed to join. Oh wait...
  5. A Single Country in the World

    Excuse me? Did you not notice most of my examples were of tensions within a single country? I fail to see how giving the world less independence will decrease those tensions. Anyhow, you did not answer the real question: HOW DO YOU FORCE THE WORLD TO ADOPT THIS IDEA? "People", huh? Why should minorities accept the majority vote? ETA, actualy, screw that, why should and would they agree to vote on that? Oh, no, just advocating killing diversity on earth, and somehow not seeing that people will fight to the death against it... I repeat: how are you going to make everyone comply, already?
  6. A Single Country in the World

    Yeah, no: Increased cultural tensions in existing superstrutures. For example: Uygurs in China, Catalonia in spain, Syria, Tchetchenia, Sudan, Belgium, Brexit-->UK vs Scotlant/Ireland. Rise of cultural divisions, notably with religion (islam around here) but also around race issues (see: black lives matter) Social divisions reaching an all-time high, with the poor (getting poorer) class voting en-masse for nationalistic parties and populist bastards (all of EU countries, Trump, most notably) and thus showing a specter of national fragmentation Unrest against state rule rising, and civil society weighting more, to a point where the state feels the need to show its muscles (Occupy, Podemos, and various civil movements -often linked to ecology- refusing the law and founding sortof autonomous region: example in France would be the occupation of an airport contruction site or a nuclear junkyard site) But all of this is wind: the real question is: how do you implement that? Force YOUR language on others, your laws, your worldview, your capital? You don't, that's what. What you are advocating is a third world war, with US as the aggressors (and they don't even have the military power)
  7. Has anyone read______?

    This one?
  8. "Minor" IS attacks in Europe

    Yes, of course, because when it's a pilot who kill hundreds of people, or some guy who kills his family or random people, it's just the act of an unbalanced man that is never put in the "terror incidents" headlines, or something, so what you say is kind of a tautology, but that is not a response to the question I was asking: why in one place it's natives, where in another it's refugees who act.
  9. "Minor" IS attacks in Europe

    Worth mentioning: There are almost never "refugees" involved in the incidents happening in France. It's mostly done by French citizen, born in France, contrary to the recent ones in Germany. Why? It's a question that can be interesting to explore. One thing seeming to link all the attacks is the young age of the attackers, this being said. The French murderer was only 19 here. French politics reacted to that attack (link in french): For the "left", the president said that "killing a priest means profanating the republic" For the "right", the previous president said that "the juridic arguments lead us to an incomplete action against terrorism", calling for the jailing of people on the basis of mere hinches from the police (he always hated the justice). (Note: both reactions from the French politicians make me want to vomit)
  10. Shooting in Munich

    Would you please explain what you mean by that exactly?
  11. Shooting in Munich

    Right. I just heard that the shooter had that exchange with a Munich inhabitant prior to the shooting where the man called him out, telling him he belonged in a psychiatric hospital or outside the country, and the shooter replied that he was German, and actually just got out of psychiatry. Should this incident, beside examining the focus given by the media, really be conflated with terror attacks more than with people just blowing a fuse, something that happens everywhere in the world, all the time? (for example)
  12. Shooting in Munich

    Some choices, considering the evolution of society, will be harder and harder to make, though. Compared to cases in history, we have against peaceful coexistence new factors like mondialisation, overpopulation, resource starvation, and growing micro and macro inequalities. Let's take Greece and its debt (that Germany insists must be paid in full.) Sure, Greek society has a choice to continue sinking their country into the mire (selling production units to other countries, diminishing salaries, pensions, making promising people leave, seeing debt grow 10% per year, etc), but at one point people, those who actually have the power, will switch from Siriza to Golden Dawn, like they did from Conservatives to Siriza before, because society is composed of people, and those people don't want to choose misery... (this is why neo-con make me laugh sometimes here, when they insist on fiscal righteousness and debt reimbursment: Do they think a people will stay sheepish and do everything they say no matter the pressure. I see those guys as big unconscious proponent of dictature.) Anyway, if their growing misery is also linked to immigration (like it's done in Hungary despite them having very very few migrants staying), then it does not really stays what I would call a choice: society will follow the anti-misery discourse and elect government that will act against immigration, despite what we would call reason and generosity.
  13. Shooting in Munich

    It's interesting, what you say is reminiscent of an intellectual discourse that is objectively on the rise in my country, whose locutors are called by some "neo-conservatives", by others "reactonaries" (examples would be Michel Onfray or Alain Finkielkraut.) It's like the current trend. Anyway, for the changing of mind, I sure hope most muslims do NOT change their mind and keep liking our countries (that also happen to be theirs, for a lot of them. 10% of France population is muslim, as I was saying) and more generally other people despite differences in culture (let us remember a lot of copts were living until very recently in Maghreb: the changing of mind that chased them is recent, and from a small subgroup of muslims in those countries.) One man can do a lot one way or another, we just have to look at Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Mohamed Bouazizi. I hold the same mind-changing hope for the next mass shooter in the US or the next Breyvik copycat. I am not holding my breath. I am envisioning the future as a mix of Huxley, Bilal and Beukes: terror strikes, an indifferent population, a police state and deregulated economy ("growth") as the only horizon and priority. When ISIS will have stopped to scare the good bourgeois like Al-Qaida did, we will move on to the next bogeyman, will it be Russia this time? There is always the great leader Kim if needs be. Maybe some independentist faction will surge again, the way Europe is going. ETA could get their share of the media pie in my region if they did their thing right.
  14. Shooting in Munich

    Hmm, most of the migration does not actually come to EU, though (one in ten, roughly), and I really doubt that one can shake off one's cultural burden as easily as you say, it cannot happen out of thin air, efficient welcome and integration policies (from what I've heard and seen they are impressive in Germany, speaking of that) have to be created by governments. Of course if like France your nurtured a divide between your citizen with immigrant roots and the rest of society for like 40 years, speaking of "efficient integration policies" becomes tricky and vaguely humorous when nothing new is really brought to the table by anyone except closing the doors and shooting the intruders.
  15. Shooting in Munich

    While I do not totally disagree, I feel like you are creating a sharp divide out of a more complex, contextual and transitory state of the world, that can and will shift rapidly, depending on environment (what you call the power of the people); as an example, let us remember that fifty years ago, there was a law forbidding French comic artist to draw "immodest" women, and that entailed that, yes, even drawn, women's hair had to be hidden by a scarf (shocking I know, for those who see muslim societies and people as essentially "closed".) Less anecdotically, still with women, they did not have a right to contraception or vote... And this is despite the extremelly social and humanist views emanating from the resistance's council , those ideas were notably brought forward recently by people like St├ęphane Hessel, whose books partly inspired movements like Spain's Podemos. What I am saying is that anyone using a "us versus them", using arguments like supposed social essentialism, would belong in the "closed" group you defined. Things are more complex than that: while there is always the tentation to create that mythified "other" that has all the flaws, it is more like every single individual and group has attributes that have to be struggled with one by one. The stigmatisation of Islam as a marker of a "closed" group ignores some context, that way, for example the fact that 10% of the French population is muslim, has been for decades (two generations at least,) yet terror strikes have to be piloted from outside, and nobody is talking of the 99,99% of those french muslim that do not go making bombs explode... When a Breivik shoots people, it's not catholics (or whatever) that get essentialized, but his political orientations. So maybe "we" should consider the way we create those groups, and the way we essentialize their characteristics based on singular cases, maybe the grouping or the prejudice are not pertinent. Why would a grouping based on abstract, complex, controversial ideology not include both bastards and saints, and even people who are both at the same time, depending on the subject? Well, of course there will be stereotyping if one decides to imply that all practitioners of a religion (because, really, no book or ideology has ever attacked me directly without the help of some human carrying it. Islam does not drive trucks.) are basically the same. This being said, all migrants I've heard don't really care about the "open"/"closed" divide: they move because: They would die or live in misery if they stayed Their target country offers them perspectives of a better life Freedom as an incentive for exile is way overrated, basic needs is where it's at.