THE GLOBALIST POPULATION PLAN

From Pan Amazon Synod Watch, a few quotes from the Elites who would be the Masters Of The World. That sounds somewhat conspiratorial, but let them speak ........

Environmental Madness (XV)

• 15/09/2019
• 8:03 am

5. Drastically Reduce or Even Eradicate the Human Race

Sir David Attenborough

“I’ve seen wildlife all over the world under mounting human pressure and it’s not just from human economy or technology – behind every threat is the frightening explosion in human numbers… All serious environmentalists know perfectly well that population growth, exploding in the 20th century, has been a key driver of every environmental problem.” Sir David Attenborough, director of The Optimum Population Trust writing in The Telegraph, April 14, 2009).
If steps are not taken to address global warming, within 30 to 40 years “most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals … A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, billionaire founder of CNN and major UN donor on PBS’s Charlie Rose television program in 2008.
“Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, then, not only would the Earth’s Community of Life continue to exist but … the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’”— Paul W. Taylor, ethics professor at City University, NYC, in Respect for Nature (Princeton Univ. Press, 1989, p. 115).
“I see no solution to our ruination of Earth except for a drastic reduction of the human population. David Foreman, ‘Earth First!’ spokesman, quoted by Gregg Easterbrook in The New Republic, April 30, 1990, p. 18. M. John Fayhee in Backpacker magazine, September 1988, p. 22 quoted Mr. Foreman as saying: “…Man is no more important than any other species … It may well take our extinction to set things straight.”
“You think Hiroshima was bad, let me tell you, mister, Hiroshima wasn’t bad enough!” – Faye Dunaway as the voice of “Mother Earth/Gaia” in the 1991 WTBS series “Voice of the Planet.”
IPCC warns the Amazon will turn into a desert: “The IPCC has concluded with 80% certainty that more than half of the Amazon rainforest could turn into savannah. Climate change tends to the desertification and salinization of areas suitable for farming. The semi-arid zone may turn into an arid one leading to the extinction of several species of flora and fauna.” – Agência Brasil, April 6, 2007.
“Mass extinctions have served as huge reset buttons that dramatically changed the diversity of species found in oceans all over the world… Some scientists have speculated that effects of humans – from hunting to climate change – are fueling another great mass extinction.”— Journalist Jeremy Hsu.
“The ‘Meatless Monday’ campaign will have the support of the [São Paulo] City’s Green Environmental Agency. The reason, according to the department, is that a large-scale carnivorous diet ‘is demonstrably unsustainable’ and brings no health benefits.”— São Paulo City Hall Proposes Meat Boycott to “save the planet” (Folha de S. Paulo, Sept. 20, 2009).

6. Population Control and Totalitarianism

Jacques Attali

“History teaches us that humanity evolves significantly only when it feels truly afraid. We must build a world police, create world food reserves and implement a global tax system. In this way we will be able to lay the foundations of a true world government faster than if driven by mere economic reasons.” Jacques Attali, French socialist and former presidential adviser (Blog Conversation avec Jacques Attali).
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people … We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer… We must have population control … by compulsion if voluntary methods fail” – Paul Ehrlich, in the book The Population Bomb (Ballantine Books, 1968).

John Holdren

“… A Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment…could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable… [It] could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes…The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including…all food on the international market… [It] might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits”—John Holdren, Assistant to President Obama for Science and Technology (Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment).

Rowan Williams

 “We must support government coercion to enforce international protocols and speed limits on motorways if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die.” – Rowan Williams, former Anglican archbishop of Canterbury.

MIND CONTROL

There is plenty of information on government and private methods of mind control. The reason for this post on the topic is that it has been reported by the mainstream NPR, the privately and publicly funded National Public Radio. This is shared from their article.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret-quest-for-mind-control-torture-lsd-and-a-poisoner-in-chief

The CIA's Secret Quest For Mind Control: Torture, LSD And A 'Poisoner In Chief'

37:36

• Download

• Transcript

• 
  

September 9, 20192:50 PM ET

Heard on Fresh Air

Terry Gross

CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb headed up the agency's secret MK-ULTRA program, which was charged with developing a mind control drug that could be weaponized against enemies.

Courtesy of the CIA

During the early period of the Cold War, the CIA became convinced that communists had discovered a drug or technique that would allow them to control human minds. In response, the CIA began its own secret program, called MK-ULTRA, to search for a mind control drug that could be weaponized against enemies.
MK-ULTRA, which operated from the 1950s until the early '60s, was created and run by a chemist named Sidney Gottlieb. Journalist Stephen Kinzer, who spent several years investigating the program, calls the operation the "most sustained search in history for techniques of mind control."
Some of Gottlieb's experiments were covertly funded at universities and research centers, Kinzer says, while others were conducted in American prisons and in detention centers in Japan, Germany and the Philippines. Many of his unwitting subjects endured psychological torture ranging from electroshock to high doses of LSD, according to Kinzer's research.
"Gottlieb wanted to create a way to seize control of people's minds, and he realized it was a two-part process," Kinzer says. "First, you had to blast away the existing mind. Second, you had to find a way to insert a new mind into that resulting void. We didn't get too far on number two, but he did a lot of work on number one."

The Picture Show

Found In The Archives: Military LSD Testing

Kinzer notes that the top-secret nature of Gottlieb's work makes it impossible to measure the human cost of his experiments. "We don't know how many people died, but a number did, and many lives were permanently destroyed," he says.
Ultimately, Gottlieb concluded that mind control was not possible. After MK-ULTRA shut down, he went on to lead a CIA program that created poisons and high-tech gadgets for spies to use.
Kinzer writes about Gottlieb and MK-ULTRA in his new book, Poisoner in Chief.

---

Interview highlights

Poisoner in Chief

Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control

by Stephen Kinzer

Hardcover, 354 pages
purchase

• 
  
• 
  

On how the CIA brought LSD to America
As part of the search for drugs that would allow people to control the human mind, CIA scientists became aware of the existence of LSD, and this became an obsession for the early directors of MK-ULTRA. Actually, the MK-ULTRA director, Sidney Gottlieb, can now be seen as the man who brought LSD to America. He was the unwitting godfather of the entire LSD counterculture.
In the early 1950s, he arranged for the CIA to pay $240,000 to buy the world's entire supply of LSD. He brought this to the United States, and he began spreading it around to hospitals, clinics, prisons and other institutions, asking them, through bogus foundations, to carry out research projects and find out what LSD was, how people reacted to it and how it might be able to be used as a tool for mind control.
Now, the people who volunteered for these experiments and began taking LSD, in many cases, found it very pleasurable. They told their friends about it. Who were those people? Ken Kesey, the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, got his LSD in an experiment sponsored by the CIA by MK-ULTRA, by Sidney Gottlieb. So did Robert Hunter, the lyricist for the Grateful Dead, which went on to become a great purveyor of LSD culture. Allen Ginsberg, the poet who preached the value of the great personal adventure of using LSD, got his first LSD from Sidney Gottlieb. Although, of course, he never knew that name.
So the CIA brought LSD to America unwittingly, and actually it's a tremendous irony that the drug that the CIA hoped would be its key to controlling humanity actually wound up fueling a generational rebellion that was dedicated to destroying everything that the CIA held dear and defended.
On how MK-ULTRA experimented on prisoners, including crime boss Whitey Bulger
Whitey Bulger was one of the prisoners who volunteered for what he was told was an experiment aimed at finding a cure for schizophrenia. As part of this experiment, he was given LSD every day for more than a year. He later realized that this had nothing to do with schizophrenia and he was a guinea pig in a government experiment aimed at seeing what people's long-term reactions to LSD was. Essentially, could we make a person lose his mind by feeding him LSD every day over such a long period?

Author Interviews

Meet 'The Brothers' Who Shaped U.S. Policy, Inside And Out

Bulger wrote afterward about his experiences, which he described as quite horrific. He thought he was going insane. He wrote, "I was in prison for committing a crime, but they committed a greater crime on me." And towards the end of his life, Bulger came to realize the truth of what had happened to him, and he actually told his friends that he was going to find that doctor in Atlanta who was the head of that experiment program in the penitentiary and go kill him.
On the CIA hiring Nazi doctors and Japanese torturers to learn methods

The CIA mind control project, MK-ULTRA, was essentially a continuation of work that began in Japanese and Nazi concentration camps.

Stephen Kinzer, author of 'Poisoner in Chief'

The CIA mind control project, MK-ULTRA, was essentially a continuation of work that began in Japanese and Nazi concentration camps. Not only was it roughly based on those experiments, but the CIA actually hired the vivisectionists and the torturers who had worked in Japan and in Nazi concentration camps to come and explain what they had found out so that we could build on their research.
For example, Nazi doctors had conducted extensive experiments with mescaline at the Dachau concentration camp, and the CIA was very interested in figuring out whether mescaline could be the key to mind control that was one of their big avenues of investigation. So they hired the Nazi doctors who had been involved in that project to advise them.
Another thing the Nazis provided was information about poison gases like sarin, which is still being used. Nazi doctors came to America to Fort Detrick in Maryland, which was the center of this project, to lecture to CIA officers to tell them how long it took for people to die from sarin.
On the more extreme experiments Gottlieb conducted overseas
Gottlieb and the CIA established secret detention centers throughout Europe and East Asia, particularly in Japan, Germany and the Philippines, which were largely under American control in the period of the early '50s, and therefore Gottlieb didn't have to worry about any legal entanglements in these places. ...
CIA officers in Europe and Asia were capturing enemy agents and others who they felt might be suspected persons or were otherwise what they called "expendable." They would grab these people and throw them into cells and then test all kinds of, not just drug potions, but other techniques, like electroshock, extremes of temperature, sensory isolation — all the meantime bombarding them with questions, trying to see if they could break down resistance and find a way to destroy the human ego. So these were projects designed not only to understand the human mind but to figure out how to destroy it. And that made Gottlieb, although in some ways a very compassionate person, certainly the most prolific torturer of his generation.
On how these experiments were unsupervised

This guy [Sidney Gottlieb] had a license to kill. He was allowed to requisition human subjects across the United States and around the world and subject them to any kind of abuse that he wanted, even up to the level of it being fatal — yet nobody looked over his shoulder.

Stephen Kinzer

[Gottlieb] operated almost completely without supervision. He had sort of a checkoff from his titular boss and from his real boss, Richard Helms, and from the CIA director, Allen Dulles. But none of them really wanted to know what he was doing. This guy had a license to kill. He was allowed to requisition human subjects across the United States and around the world and subject them to any kind of abuse that he wanted, even up to the level of it being fatal — yet nobody looked over his shoulder. He never had to file serious reports to anybody. I think the mentality must have been [that] this project is so important — mind control, if it can be mastered, is the key to global world power.
On how Gottlieb destroyed evidence about his experiments when he left the CIA
The end of Gottlieb's career came in 1972, when his patron, Richard Helms, who was then director of the CIA, was removed by [President Richard] Nixon. Once Helms was gone, it was just a matter of time until Gottlieb would be gone, and most important was that Helms was really the only person at the CIA who had an idea of what Gottlieb had been doing. So as they were both on their way out of the CIA, they agreed that they should destroy all records of MK-ULTRA. Gottlieb actually drove out to the CIA records center and ordered the archives to destroy boxes full of MK-ULTRA records. ... However, it turns out that there were some [records] found in other places; there was a depot for expense account reports that had not been destroyed, and various other pieces of paper remain. So there is enough out there to reconstruct some of what he did, but his effort to wipe away his traces by destroying all those documents in the early '70s was quite successful.
Sam Briger and Thea Chaloner produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the Web.

THE GAY "GIFT OF DEATH"

DEPRAVITY WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY KNOWS NO BOUNDS, as many homosexuals known as ‘Bug Chasers’ seek to have sex with men who are HIV positive, so that they too may contract the ‘Gift’ of HIV in what they term “the ultimate erotic experience”.

When I say that there are “many” who seek this perverted experience, there are contested statistics put forward. Rolling Stone claims that 25% of gay men are bug chasers, while a study quoted in Wikipedia put the number at 7.5%.

There is a documentary available on YouTube called THE GIFT, while here I post a shorter interview [4 mins], with the producer ………..

The wikipedia article on it is here ……..

 https://youtu.be/Bo_n0IPsC7g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

Where innocent li’l ol’ me caught up with this suicidal activity was on Reddit where, on a particular forum, gay men were putting out requests to find other men with the ‘gift’. The language was the most vile and sickening I can recall seeing where the ‘gifted’ and the ‘chasers’ were exchanging what they would like to do with each other. And, no thanks to the facebook friend who alerted me to it.

BUT, why do I bring this up now?

Alerting others to this activity will probably be of no consequence in this post-modern world where relativism and situational ethics prevail for the sake of  “love being love” and Truth is now whatever you claim it to be for yourself. But, the area where this issue does affect others in the world of rights and redress is the world where our taxes are getting poured into the health care of these intentionally sick people with self-inflicted disease.

They will eventually need medical care and, even if this were given in a public hospital with little cost to the afflicted, our taxes pay for that hospital and all treatments given. Then, additionally, it’s fair to say that they will choose medication, either as a cure or for the easing of distressing symptoms. THIS IS MY POINT, since we are powerless to restrict the activity itself and even to do so would impinge on their ‘rights’. But we can do something about the public taxpayer funding of treatment. What actually prompted this blog post was yesterday’s article by the ABC which says ……..

“A ground-breaking HIV prevention drug has been approved for taxpayer subsidy in Australia — marking a major milestone in the four decades long battle against HIV and AIDS.

PrEP or pre-exposure prophylaxis has been recommended for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by a panel of experts.

The Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt previously promised government funding for the drug if approved by the committee.

The decision is expected to see the over-the-counter cost of the drug drop from up to $1,000 to about $40.

Victorian AIDS Council CEO Simon Ruth said it should be available by the middle of the year from any doctor or pharmacy.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-09/aids-drug-prep-prophylaxis-to-go-on-pbs/9415992?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%3a8935&user_id=f1e05c0441fa15762f058f788d9eadb07fe05fed924db4d59e9dc95eff2247d4&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%7c8935&utm_content=ABCNewsmail_topstories_articlelink

NO WAY JOSE !! We should and must not subsidize these people to the tune of $1000 per treatment. We can and should put pressure on the appropriate government Ministers to not fund treatments for this self-inflicted disease. But, there’s a problem. Or two or three. The taxpayer, remember, already funds HIV treatments in public hospitals for HIV patients, some of whom have contracted the disease via non-homosexual sex. Gays who have contracted the virus via sex know the risks they have taken, yet they are subsidized without taxpayer protest. Of course the argument will be made in relation to subsidized cancer treatment for smokers. While that argument appears justified, it is not. Why? Because for one thing [apart from the addiction angle], long term smokers will have paid around $100,000 in taxes over aproximately 50 years and so have paid for their treatment by proxy. Another problem inherent here is determining which infected person has contracted HIV deliberately as a ‘bug chaser’, who should be excluded from receiving subsidized care. This area is above my pay grade, so I will leave readers to ponder and to take any action that they deem warranted. There are many articles on bug chasing per se, and I will leave you with this one ……….

https://blacknright.wordpress.com/chicagosgayhighschool/bug-chasers-the-truth-about-hiv/?blogsub=confirmed#blog_subscription-3

Kyrie Eleison.

TAYLOR SWIFT IS THE MEAT IN THE SANDWICH

 

ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS SLAM TAYLOR SWIFT FOR APPEARING AT THE MELBOURNE CUP.
THE SPORT OF KINGS UNDER FIRE [again] ALONG WITH THE SYMBOLIC FRONT PIECE FOR THE OCCULTIST MUSIC INDUSTRY "ENLIGHTENED ONES" [rarely].
==========================================
You have to feel some sympathy for Taylor - the controlled symbol for a degenerate mob of Satanic hustlers who have indoctrinated kids into the New Age Movement [or tried their darndest]. Now she is under attack by the usual suspects of activists, but one suspects that Taylor will win out due to her fan base and army of adoring indoctrinees and neophytes of the "Movement". Poor gal, she previously suffered vitriolic abuse from the Left after going silent upon Trump's election, even though she is a Democrat voter and shill for LGBT [comes with the territory], racial activists, abortion, and all those blah, blah causes. But that was because she hails from the redneck base of country & western music.

Taylor was the main prop at the 2018 American Music Awards, singing "I Did Something Bad" just to inculcate the philosophy in young minds that bad is good. The trimmings included snakes galore, a giant image of a Cobra, the expected hand signals to appease the Illuminati controllers, the One-Eye gnostic symbol, and all the rest. Snakes you say?!! Yes, the symbolic repeat of Eve's capitulation to Satan in the Garden Of Eden [and get the adrenalin rush of the stage show and the monotone mind-bending music that entraps young minds]. Kids hooked on that stuff from the age of 10 to 30 gives them 20 years of brainwashing, no doubt. But then we all have been subjected to toneless, monotonous vocal masturbations since 1980, albeit from some wonderful vocalists - but the Occult Industry will control what you hear - you hear!!
So, now this poor puppet for the left marionettes will be the contradictory front girl for the capitalists' big event in the Greatest Horse Race In The World [apart from the Birdsville Cup, of course]. Conflict?...... Nah, not when it comes to $$$$$$$$$$$. We should just thank our lucky astrological new age stars that Meat Loaf wasn't invited.

THE JONES AFFAIR IS OUR AFFAIR

ALAN JONES, Aussie radio host, has been called a misogynist for suggesting the PM tell Jacinda Ardern, the PM of NZ, to "Put a Sock In It", or words to that effect. His critics are waging a war to have him deplatformed and are running a campaign with the stations advertisers to drop him. This is not about Jones or his character, this is about us; about our cultural expressions, our axioms, and our customs.

The attacks emanate from the usual suspects of the left, the cultural Marxists. As globalists, their general aims are to wreck our uniqueness of expression and customs to homogenize the population under the false and contradictory principle of multiculturalism which, in fact, destroys difference and diversity. We must be converted into a single, controlled mass of tolerant relativists who can be criminalized for offending the perpetually offended virtue-signalers and snowflakes of minorities and intersectionals so that their waving of the hammer and sickle is not objected to. They need to be freed up to hyper-sexualize our children, convince them that they were born in the wrong body, and develop their army of non-procreating homosexuals to reduce the population and rid the country of conservative Christians who stand in their way with their abominable, restrictive moralities and imaginary friend in the sky.
  A reckoning is coming.

An Aussie can run into the PM in the street and feel free to say: "G'day Scott, how about you pull your finger out with the coal mines, mate?" without being hauled off to the clink. No undue offense is intended and none would be taken. Were the PM a female, it would not be considered a misogynistic remark, unless you went by the name of Tony Abbott and glanced at your watch while she was speaking. Nor would it imply that his finger was in any particular location, literally. It's our way, our casualness, our egalitarianism. At least it has been for a few hundred years. Similarly, 'putting a sock in it' is a euphamism, it's metaphoric, but to the leftist flakes it's literal. They deliberately interpret such cheeky banalities either because they are ignorant products of a dumbed down educational process or else they weaponize their misinterpretation to stifle our axioms and to change our unique customs. It's their weapon of war against our ways.

This activism is being driven by Melbourne's soy boy Green Pollie, Adam the Bandt, and the page titled "F***ING MAD WITCHES" with their supposed 50,000 followers who have hounded the advertisers to desert the radio program. Many of them have complied in the way that only corporations with a political agenda can. These pretenders of femininity must be so self-loathing about their abilities to attract a male complement and compliment, that they adopt the persona of the Sistahood Of Aleister Crowley interbred with oily dregs of waste to spew their vitriol in vile language against mere euphamisms and metaphors. They are nothing but dykey SJW's devoid of morality and principle, judging by their postings. Such under-achievers are sour that they are not noticed and their narcissism is fulfilled in playing the "Bad Bitches" of the anti-hero genre to appear cooool, just ever so cool. "Look at moi, look at moi!" We have. You're ugly, very ugly, and your agenda is patent. Bugger orf, shove a sock in it, and go read some C.J.Dennis.

BORIS JOHNSON

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Boris Johnson and the EU: Crash through or just crash

by Peter Westmore

News Weekly, July 27, 2019

Boris Johnson, elected overwhelmingly by the grass roots of the British Conservative Party to replace Theresa May as Prime Minister, faces the awesome task of reuniting the British Government to secure Britain’s exit from the European Union, within just three months.

Boris Johnson: Never lost for words.

Boris Johnson is an unlikely Prime Minister. The 55-year-old former mayor of London cuts a bedraggled figure, with a mop of characteristically uncombed blond hair, clothes askew, and a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth while quoting Latin aphorisms that nobody understands.

Yet he has pursued the prime ministership with singular determination.

Theresa May stepped down as leader of the party after she failed three times to win parliamentary support for her agreement with the European Union on the terms of British withdrawal.

Boris Johnson, though a member of the Conservative Government, led the campaign to withdraw from the EU in 2016, then scuttled May’s proposal, describing it as a betrayal of the British people’s vote to leave the union.

Johnson and a group of Tory rebels was supported by the British Labour Party in voting down May’s agreement.

Difficult task

Johnson now faces the task of uniting a fractured party around a new proposal to withdraw from the EU, or leave the EU without a deal in three months time.

His election poses problems for both sides of politics. Johnson is supported by a clear majority of Tory MPs. But, if pro-EU Tories vote against him in Parliament alongside the Labour Party, at the very least they may expedite Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union without a deal – the one outcome they have totally rejected.

If the Labour Party is successful in moving a vote of “no confidence” in Parliament against Johnson, it may bring on an early election, which opinion polls say Labour would decisively lose. In any case, it is a high-risk strategy. It may be that Boris Johnson is anticipating such a move as a means of weakening or even splitting the Labour Party.

The British Labour Party campaigned assiduously against May, and demanded that she call an early election, and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has repeated calls for Johnson to go to an early poll.

But Corbyn has not proposed a vote of “no confidence” against the British Prime Minister, which is the only practical way to bring on an early election, under existing law. In any case, the British Parliament has just gone into the summer recess, and nothing will happen for at least another month.

It remains to be seen whether Boris Johnson’s aggressive anti-EU rhetoric forces the EU to take a more accommodating approach than it did with May.

EU business leaders have long warned of the calamitous consequences for Europe if Britain unilaterally withdraws from the union. They have pointed to the vast imbalance in trade that is currently in favour of the EU, to the damage to joint projects such as Airbus, key parts of which are manufactured in Britain, and to the future status of EU citizens living in the UK.

The UK has a population of about 64 million, of which 2.9 million (5 per cent) are from Europe. They would all require visas to remain in the UK after Brexit, and may not be permitted to stay and work in the UK. Over a million Brits live permanently in other parts of the EU.

Whatever the adverse consequences for Britain of crashing out of the EU without a deal, the consequences for Europe will arguably be even worse.

Belatedly, the leaders of the EU seem to have accepted that. Recent elections in the EU have increased the strength of anti-EU parties across Europe, adding to tensions within the union, and increasing the possibility that other countries may hold referenda on withdrawal.

For most countries in Europe, withdrawal would be considerably more difficult than Britain’s, not just because of the common borders, but also because – unlike Britain, which retained its own currency, the pound sterling – they have adopted the common currency, the euro.

In the meantime, Boris Johnson has moved quickly to appoint a new cabinet that is strongly pro-Brexit. Over half the members of May’s team have been replaced, including the top five jobs.

Apart from Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, they include:

• Chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent of our Treasurer) Sajid Javid, the former Home Secretary, bank executive and son of Pakistani Muslim immigrants.
• Home Secretary Priti Patel, born in London of Indian refugees from Uganda.
• Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, son of a Jewish Czech immigrant, who had resigned last November over May’s Brexit deal.
• Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, a former commander in the Scots Guard and supporter of a no-deal Brexit.

There is a strong sense that the European Union’s intransigence in negotiations with Theresa May has now given them Boris Johnson, a far more difficult leader to deal with. And Johnson has made clear that compromise is not a word in his expansive vocabulary.

LOGIC and RELIGION

A TEST OF LOGIC from Wm. BRIGGS.

How Can Any Religion Have A Monopoly On Truth?

by BriggsPosted on July 26, 2019

Soak this up (emphasis original):

By the time she turned up in New York, [Justina Walford’s] faith had long since unraveled, a casualty of overseas travel that made her question how any one religious community could have a monopoly on truth. But still she grieved the loss of God. “It was like breaking up with someone that you thought was your soulmate,” Walford told me. “It’s for the better. It’s for your own good,” she remembered thinking. Even though it no longer made sense to her to believe, she felt a gaping hole where her Church—her people, her psalms, her stained-glass windows—used to be.

We can see the usefulness of using emotions to judge truth, as young Walford has done, leads to grief—and error. If what feels good is true, then truth depends on your digestion (as subjective probability does). However, everybody, except magazine writers and feminist organizations, know this, so skip it.
Concentrate instead on this: could any one religious community have a monopoly on truth?
If you find yourself saying, “Gee! I guess it can’t!” then you have committed the One True Spartacus Fallacy. Twice.
The first time is implicitly saying “I now possess the monopolistic truth that my religion, that of myself being the ultimate judge of good and evil and of the truth and falsity of religions, must be true, because no one religious community could have a monopoly on truth. Except my community of one, or of the community of like-minded people who come together to celebrate their infinite perspicacity.”
You can’t say it is true there is no truth. Unless you’re an academic—in which case you could secure tenure with idiotic statements just like that. Given this is the internet, let me be painfully clear. You can’t say all religions are false unless you can prove it, which means, for a start, proving the necessary Being is not necessary. Best o’ luck.
The second time the fallacy is used is worse. It is to say there can be no true Spartacus because all the other men stood up and said that they were the one true Spartacus. And that because so many men said it, and were wrong, therefore there could be no one true Spartacus.
It would be like a scientist saying, “Because there are all these other rival theories purporting to explain this effect, each claiming to be the one true theory, and all are wrong except for mine; therefore, there can be no one true theory explaining this effect. Therefore I must be wrong, too. There is thus no reason to search for the one true theory. Science is a farce and a fake and a fraud. I’m taking up Yoga instead.”
Not only that, he would be applauded as being wonderfully aware. He’d win the Gold Fedora for having made this brilliant deduction.
There have been lots of scientific theories of effects, each claiming to be the one true theory, or a portion of it. Just as there have been lots of religions claiming to be the one true religion, or a portion of it.
Think! If any theory or religion said it was wrong, admitted up front that it’s so much bovine spongiography, who would follow it? Who practices a theory or religion that they knew is false?
Of course, mistakes have been made. But we don’t give up on science, because science, like religion, is self-correcting. We do think we can jettison religion, though, based on arguments as dumb as the One True Spartacus Fallacy.
What galls the modern mind is a religion with the temerity to say it is the one true religion. The stakes in religion are higher than in any science, so it’s natural emotions run hotter. But what’s really happening is that people making the Fallacy have already judged the religion under discussion false, and not only that religion, but all religions, and without the benefit of arguing why. Therefore they’re only rejecting “one more God”, as the internet-atheists say.
Tough cookies. There is one true religion, and all the others are either false or only approximations to it, containing, possibly, some truths and not knowing others, while, possibly, also containing falsities.
Naturally, some reject this one true religion for reasons other than the silly “all religions but my own are false.” But if it’s because this one true religion openly calls itself the one true religion, which you “feel” is an affront, then you have made the Effeminacy Fallacy.
Which brings us back to the beginning. You have rejected a religion because it has hurt your feelings. Suck it up, buttercup.