"what they want to believe is sometimes determined by what their peers believe."
I am fortunate, then, not to have any "peers". No doubt that's why I'm far more independent than you are.
Also fortunate that I ran into anarchists shortly after a brief fling with the "Big-L" Libertarians in the Libertarian Party. So I never fell into the "state trap" or had anything to do directly with politics. Having spent three years in the US Army, including a year in Vietnam, also assisted in that process.
I suppose having been bullied at school as a child was the best thing that ever happened to me. It allowed me to experience - if not fully conceptually understand until much later - how fucked up the human species is and how limited their capacity for reason actually is.
I think for the majority once their basic needs are met they care very little for the world beyond. That has an attraction. They're not sitting worrying that Ukraine is trying to get the bomb or that Israel might nuke Iran.
True. Every election poll has shown that US foreign policy is way down on the list of concerns. The economy is usually number one. As I've said before, humans, like other primates, have only emotional loyalty to their own "troop", and not the abstract concept of "humanity" despite whatever lip service they pay to it.
I myself only got interested in foreign policy after September 11, in the run up to the Iraq war and in 2003 during the Iraq war when I was exposed to the Web site iraqwar.ru (reputed to be a site that got its info from the Russian GRU). I was one of the first to declare there that Iraq was going to have a very serious insurgency.
Subsequently I got interested in the Iran nuclear issue and quickly determined that whole "Iran nuclear weapons program" story was complete BS. I spent a lot of time on several Web sites, notably goingtotehran.com (now defunct) which was run by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett.
This also led to learning about the history of the Palestinian issue, which I had previously only viewed through the lens of how Middle East terrorism worked since I had a twenty-year interest in all forms of guerrilla war and terrorism (I'm an anarchist, after all!). Over the last few years since the 2006 Lebanon conflict I learned more about it. I have over 320 downloaded books on Israel, Palestine and Zionism that I haven't read yet (and probably won't except as needed.) I got banned from Josh Marshal's "Talking Points Memo" site for arguing with pro-Zionists.
And yet for all that, foreign policy as such isn't the issue. The issue is whether there is a threat of WWIII, which would directly threaten me. Otherwise I couldn't care less about what goes on in the rest of the world. My enemy is my government, and my society, and whatever threat they pose to me. So whatever they do that may end up in a direct threat to me is my concern - not what happens to anyone else anywhere else. That's not a primate troop issue - that's an individualist anarchist issue.
Thus, in addition to being an anarchist and thus able to objectively view the actions of states, I don't have the problems of analysis that the "Big-P Patriots" like Ritter and the rest of the Judge Nap crowd (with the exceptions of Crooke and Escobar, who aren't Americans) have in objectively viewing what's happening.
"Hoping for the best, but assuming the worst" is good advice. It's rarely let me down.
Yep. We have barely evolved from the 'kill or be killed' of the animal environment. Most of us are still in that primitive state, and of those who aren't because they are insulated by their environment, most would slip back if things changed.
Great piece Rob and thanks for expanding on your career with the Labour party.
To me it seems like independent thinking is being/has been weened off the curriculum in modern education as society needs less obstruction from future unquestioning generations for it's plans.
As a human being when you grow older and more experienced you are able to understand more about life and politics etc
We also know that when we vote for political parties they cannot please everyone or treat everybody the same because as humans we all have different needs and interests.
For example jobs, taxes, wealth, lifestyle etc
So why do the majority of people adamantly believe that they can only ever be interested in one party or be left and right etc?
Why can they only believe what their political leaders e.g. Biden, Netanyahu etc are telling them when they know that it is impossible to represent everyone's interests at the same time?
I agree with you about much - and was a contemporary of Piers C. His view on the role of sun-spots is interesting but so is the science about global heating. They both have currency. There is however no doubt that climate change is happening and the key thing we have to do is to tackle this at a universal level - and so the key thing is to create the basis for a more accountable world and that means defeating US Imperialism. as a pre-requisite for tackling the environmental and climate challenges that face us. The emphasis has to be on adaptation in every sense.
I have doubts that the science on global warming has currency because the forecasts made on the basis of this theory have not materialised - and for many other reasons. But we will have a better idea when we reach the low point of the current solar cycle. I am not claiming to know that global warming is happening btw.
I'm trying to understand how independent thinking actually evolves. I accept that there has to be an element of peer group etc. But, for eg, i was raised a Roman Catholic and attended Roman Catholic schools but from a very early age i simply viewed the teachings as indoctrination and used free will to opt out. I wouldn't describe myself as rebellious but i had a gut instinct that something wasn't right. Where did the gut instinct come from?
I never believed in man made warming. Most likely because I was on to the ozone hole scam and the eliminating of freon. Same people, same tactics. Being a construction engineer could of also had something to do with it. Can't build anything on views and opinions. Only concrete and steel. The Capitalism verses Socialism is a weak spot of yours. You almost recognize it in your left verses right evaluation, but not entirely. Did the word Capitalism exist before Karl Marx? Loaded question.
" In the globally extended history of modern European civilization, the alternative to central banking is identified by the precedent of the first and second Bank of the United States. Although New York and other American Tory private bankers, such as Aaron Burr, Martin van Buren, and pro-Confederacy August Belmont, succeeded, in concert with London, in suppressing the national banks of the U.S.A., the principle of national banking is implicitly intrinsic to the U.S. Federal Constitution. Here lies the most crucial difference between what Europeans have mistakenly tolerated as their definition of “capitalism,” and the deepest axiomatic principle of that American System of political-economy which the German-American economist Friedrich List defined as the National System of economy."
I think you could be right about socialism being a weak spot for me. I am a libertarian socialist or a communitarian anarchist but I recognise this as my own belief system which I would not force on anyone else. I studied Karl Marx for nine years so its bound to have had an effect on my thinking including the Capitalism v Socialism dichotomy. But I rejected Marxism as an ideology early on and I may even reject this dichotomy at some stage. I haven't got time to deal with it in depth here but may write a piece on it later. Cheers.
The use of the word 'dogma' is just another label. It's use is designed to diminish whatever is being described as a dogmatic belief. So that, in reply to the 'accusation' someone might reply "... you could be right about socialism being a weak spot for me."
Somewhat apologetic to say the least. 'Ideology' similarly tends to be a label used to dimish a body of knowledge derived from stringent analysis. Marx wrote an economic treatise. Friedrich List, as a capitalist entrepreneur, merely labelled what Marx defined as capitalism as National System of economy, which as far as I'm concerned is as similarly vague as global warming, it describes nothing and is therefore merely a virtual reality.
Socialism has a meaning beyond the label that it is an ideology. Its politicisation by opponents of its tenets does not detract from the economic and social benefits for the majority that it proposes. See Michael Hudson's purely economic perspective of its 'functional' utility.
Thanks for that Dude. I don't agree that 'dogma' is just a label but concede that it is sometimes used that way in a derogatory sense as a means of discrediting someone or their beliefs. I will be doing a philosophy short on Dogma after I've finished the independent thinking series. This will explain my approach to dogma. I am not being apologetic about my socialism at all: I am merely conceding that my thinking could change - which is in keeping with the independent thinking article I have just submitted. I am not against ideologies per se but don't think that it is appropriate to use them as a blueprint for a new society. This is what I meant when I said that I rejected Marxism as an ideology.
Lantern Dude - I think your comments were deserving of a more considered response than I have given you - as I realised while out walking the dog. It will be a month or more before I do the Dogma series and I don't think it fair that you should wait that long for some clarity. But I will be brief. The point of the independent thinking series is to make people aware that some things get in the way of clear thinking - and I have examined this through my own experiences. This is why I used the Nietzsche quote at the beginning: 'minds that are prevented from changing their opinions...cease to be minds' - by which Nietzsche appears to mean that they cease to operate as minds. Let me use the example of the man on the moon to illustrate the point. If I believed in a man on the moon but obtained proof positive that he does not exist (I know this is not possible but I am presenting a hypothetical argument) I could either change my opinion about his existence or I could ignore/dismiss the incontrovertible evidence that tells me that the man on the moon could not possibly exist. If I do the former, I am doing what Nietzsche would want and what I would want. But if I did the latter, I this would be dogmatic and the man on the moon thesis would be an example of dogma. If I obtained similar incontrovertible evidence that Socialism was not possible I could be accused of dogma if I ignored this evidence and continued to believe in socialism. This is the possibility I am entertaining when I say that my views on the Capitalist-Socialist dichotomy could change. There are lots of things that get in the way of clear thinking apart from dogma (understood in this sense) and I will explore some of them in the independent thinking series. With regards to my reservations about ideology and Marxism in particular, I should say that I don't believe that one man (i.e. Marx) can know everything about economics, sociology and political theory to the extent that he can provide a blueprint for a future society - as some believe, though not Marx himself. The great German sociologist Max Weber regarded Marx's economics and sociology as 'ideal types' - or ways of looking at the world which help us to understand it better. BUT - ideal types do not describe the world as it is. Yet some Marxists do not appreciate this. This is why I don't believe that Marxism as an ideology should provide a model for a socialist society - though there are aspects of Marx's writings that could contribute towards the creation of a better world. There is much in Marx to admire - or I wouldn't have studied him for nine years and made his works such a large part of my Doctoral thesis. That will have to do for now. I do appreciate your comments. If there is anything else that is not clear, please ask. I don't mind being distracted in a good cause - and providing clarity is a good cause
apologies if I gave the impression that I had any feelings concerning your reservations about Marxism as an ideology. My point was the use by commentators of labels such as 'dogma' and 'ideology' in what I considered, a derogatory fashion.
I think we both agree that beliefs motivate people in a variety of ways and that ideas need to be reviewed and updated as required, hence your use of Nietzsche quote.
I also encountered Max Weber and the tool he called 'ideal types'. Haven't or didn't investigate his analysis of Marx's theories, I suppose that he regards all such theories as such. Just downloaded a PDF, which I will read. Cheers.
I have to say that words fail me. I thought you were on the right side, but so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut would say. There is no credible (credible) evidence that the world is cooling, while there is an overwhelming mass of evidence that overall world temperature is rising very steeply. And even if I am eventually proved wrong, and you are proved right, what sort of idiot would take a gamble on the fate of the world by advocating (if you do - I'm not clear on that) continuing the emission of 'greenhouse' gases just on the off-chance that you may be proved right in the future.
Furthermore, all sorts of other things come into the equation. It is indisputable that a) oil and gas are going to run out by around 2100 (we are arguably now, this year, at peak oil), b) we have mined and extracted all the easily obtained metal ores, c) once diesel fuel goes, electric or hydrogen will not be able to replace it in order to continue the increasingly difficult extraction of ores and other work such as construction, d) human population expansion will also peak pretty soon, but in the meantime many other species will be driven to extinction, e) we do not know which species are indispensable to our survival - there is a 'chain of being' from bacteria to us, and if one essential link is destroyed all above it will perish, f) global climate change ( no matter what version or causes or increase or decrease in temperature you believe) and destructive human farming and logging methods are destroying topsoil and vegetation at an unsustainable rate, so food production will also plummet around 2100, g) the deleterious effects on the environment and us caused by pollution and micro-plastics can be added to all that.
Lastly, I just don't see how you can argue, for example, that the North Atlantic is not getting warmer. You can see it in the slowing down of the Atlantic hot/cold water circulation currents, and the gradual appearance of warm water species in what used to be areas too cold for them. Then there is the very visible destruction of the ice cover on both poles. The vast majority of scientists say that global warming is a fact. Possibly a quarter of these scientists could be bought and sold for an expensive car, but most of them are just normal people with families. To imagine that hundreds of thousands of them are engaged in a vast conspiracy is nuts.
PS. Anyone who ever had any sort of faith that the so-called 'Labour' party would do anything useful apart from acting as an occasional proxy for the tory party (an action which is certainly not useful except for the establishment), needs to take a good look at their judgement processes.
Its' not about being on the right side or the wrong side Jams. If you want to believe in global warming then go ahead but I have seen plenty of evidence that the earth is cooling. But we won't know for certain until this solar cycle has ended. I never really had any faith in the Labour party and joined when Corbyn was elected leader in the hope that it could change - a forlorn hope as it turned out. On May 29th I did a piece entitled 'No I don't believe in global warming' in which I provide some links.
I really enjoyed this. Thank you for sharing your story. Looking forward to pt2
Same sentiments from me.
"what they want to believe is sometimes determined by what their peers believe."
I am fortunate, then, not to have any "peers". No doubt that's why I'm far more independent than you are.
Also fortunate that I ran into anarchists shortly after a brief fling with the "Big-L" Libertarians in the Libertarian Party. So I never fell into the "state trap" or had anything to do directly with politics. Having spent three years in the US Army, including a year in Vietnam, also assisted in that process.
I suppose having been bullied at school as a child was the best thing that ever happened to me. It allowed me to experience - if not fully conceptually understand until much later - how fucked up the human species is and how limited their capacity for reason actually is.
I think for the majority once their basic needs are met they care very little for the world beyond. That has an attraction. They're not sitting worrying that Ukraine is trying to get the bomb or that Israel might nuke Iran.
True. Every election poll has shown that US foreign policy is way down on the list of concerns. The economy is usually number one. As I've said before, humans, like other primates, have only emotional loyalty to their own "troop", and not the abstract concept of "humanity" despite whatever lip service they pay to it.
I myself only got interested in foreign policy after September 11, in the run up to the Iraq war and in 2003 during the Iraq war when I was exposed to the Web site iraqwar.ru (reputed to be a site that got its info from the Russian GRU). I was one of the first to declare there that Iraq was going to have a very serious insurgency.
Subsequently I got interested in the Iran nuclear issue and quickly determined that whole "Iran nuclear weapons program" story was complete BS. I spent a lot of time on several Web sites, notably goingtotehran.com (now defunct) which was run by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett.
This also led to learning about the history of the Palestinian issue, which I had previously only viewed through the lens of how Middle East terrorism worked since I had a twenty-year interest in all forms of guerrilla war and terrorism (I'm an anarchist, after all!). Over the last few years since the 2006 Lebanon conflict I learned more about it. I have over 320 downloaded books on Israel, Palestine and Zionism that I haven't read yet (and probably won't except as needed.) I got banned from Josh Marshal's "Talking Points Memo" site for arguing with pro-Zionists.
And yet for all that, foreign policy as such isn't the issue. The issue is whether there is a threat of WWIII, which would directly threaten me. Otherwise I couldn't care less about what goes on in the rest of the world. My enemy is my government, and my society, and whatever threat they pose to me. So whatever they do that may end up in a direct threat to me is my concern - not what happens to anyone else anywhere else. That's not a primate troop issue - that's an individualist anarchist issue.
Thus, in addition to being an anarchist and thus able to objectively view the actions of states, I don't have the problems of analysis that the "Big-P Patriots" like Ritter and the rest of the Judge Nap crowd (with the exceptions of Crooke and Escobar, who aren't Americans) have in objectively viewing what's happening.
"Hoping for the best, but assuming the worst" is good advice. It's rarely let me down.
Yep. We have barely evolved from the 'kill or be killed' of the animal environment. Most of us are still in that primitive state, and of those who aren't because they are insulated by their environment, most would slip back if things changed.
Great piece Rob and thanks for expanding on your career with the Labour party.
To me it seems like independent thinking is being/has been weened off the curriculum in modern education as society needs less obstruction from future unquestioning generations for it's plans.
As a human being when you grow older and more experienced you are able to understand more about life and politics etc
We also know that when we vote for political parties they cannot please everyone or treat everybody the same because as humans we all have different needs and interests.
For example jobs, taxes, wealth, lifestyle etc
So why do the majority of people adamantly believe that they can only ever be interested in one party or be left and right etc?
Why can they only believe what their political leaders e.g. Biden, Netanyahu etc are telling them when they know that it is impossible to represent everyone's interests at the same time?
Cheers Anthony
I agree with you about much - and was a contemporary of Piers C. His view on the role of sun-spots is interesting but so is the science about global heating. They both have currency. There is however no doubt that climate change is happening and the key thing we have to do is to tackle this at a universal level - and so the key thing is to create the basis for a more accountable world and that means defeating US Imperialism. as a pre-requisite for tackling the environmental and climate challenges that face us. The emphasis has to be on adaptation in every sense.
I have doubts that the science on global warming has currency because the forecasts made on the basis of this theory have not materialised - and for many other reasons. But we will have a better idea when we reach the low point of the current solar cycle. I am not claiming to know that global warming is happening btw.
I'm trying to understand how independent thinking actually evolves. I accept that there has to be an element of peer group etc. But, for eg, i was raised a Roman Catholic and attended Roman Catholic schools but from a very early age i simply viewed the teachings as indoctrination and used free will to opt out. I wouldn't describe myself as rebellious but i had a gut instinct that something wasn't right. Where did the gut instinct come from?
There are lots of issues packed into that short paragraph. - too many to deal with really. Thanks.
I never believed in man made warming. Most likely because I was on to the ozone hole scam and the eliminating of freon. Same people, same tactics. Being a construction engineer could of also had something to do with it. Can't build anything on views and opinions. Only concrete and steel. The Capitalism verses Socialism is a weak spot of yours. You almost recognize it in your left verses right evaluation, but not entirely. Did the word Capitalism exist before Karl Marx? Loaded question.
" In the globally extended history of modern European civilization, the alternative to central banking is identified by the precedent of the first and second Bank of the United States. Although New York and other American Tory private bankers, such as Aaron Burr, Martin van Buren, and pro-Confederacy August Belmont, succeeded, in concert with London, in suppressing the national banks of the U.S.A., the principle of national banking is implicitly intrinsic to the U.S. Federal Constitution. Here lies the most crucial difference between what Europeans have mistakenly tolerated as their definition of “capitalism,” and the deepest axiomatic principle of that American System of political-economy which the German-American economist Friedrich List defined as the National System of economy."
I think you could be right about socialism being a weak spot for me. I am a libertarian socialist or a communitarian anarchist but I recognise this as my own belief system which I would not force on anyone else. I studied Karl Marx for nine years so its bound to have had an effect on my thinking including the Capitalism v Socialism dichotomy. But I rejected Marxism as an ideology early on and I may even reject this dichotomy at some stage. I haven't got time to deal with it in depth here but may write a piece on it later. Cheers.
The use of the word 'dogma' is just another label. It's use is designed to diminish whatever is being described as a dogmatic belief. So that, in reply to the 'accusation' someone might reply "... you could be right about socialism being a weak spot for me."
Somewhat apologetic to say the least. 'Ideology' similarly tends to be a label used to dimish a body of knowledge derived from stringent analysis. Marx wrote an economic treatise. Friedrich List, as a capitalist entrepreneur, merely labelled what Marx defined as capitalism as National System of economy, which as far as I'm concerned is as similarly vague as global warming, it describes nothing and is therefore merely a virtual reality.
Socialism has a meaning beyond the label that it is an ideology. Its politicisation by opponents of its tenets does not detract from the economic and social benefits for the majority that it proposes. See Michael Hudson's purely economic perspective of its 'functional' utility.
Thanks for that Dude. I don't agree that 'dogma' is just a label but concede that it is sometimes used that way in a derogatory sense as a means of discrediting someone or their beliefs. I will be doing a philosophy short on Dogma after I've finished the independent thinking series. This will explain my approach to dogma. I am not being apologetic about my socialism at all: I am merely conceding that my thinking could change - which is in keeping with the independent thinking article I have just submitted. I am not against ideologies per se but don't think that it is appropriate to use them as a blueprint for a new society. This is what I meant when I said that I rejected Marxism as an ideology.
I look forward to 'a philosophy short on Dogma'. 'Idealogies' also seems to be tricky:
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, doctrine, creed, credo, teaching, dogma, theory, thesis, tenets, canon(s), conviction(s), persuasion, opinions, position, ethics, morals,
- the set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual.
"a critique of bourgeois ideology"
2. (archaic) the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.
(archaic) visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.
A word seemingly simultaneously endowed with positive and negative connotations. Useful for agents provocateurs.
I don't intend to distract you anymore. I enjoyed the first of these articles and look forward to more. Cheers.
Lantern Dude - I think your comments were deserving of a more considered response than I have given you - as I realised while out walking the dog. It will be a month or more before I do the Dogma series and I don't think it fair that you should wait that long for some clarity. But I will be brief. The point of the independent thinking series is to make people aware that some things get in the way of clear thinking - and I have examined this through my own experiences. This is why I used the Nietzsche quote at the beginning: 'minds that are prevented from changing their opinions...cease to be minds' - by which Nietzsche appears to mean that they cease to operate as minds. Let me use the example of the man on the moon to illustrate the point. If I believed in a man on the moon but obtained proof positive that he does not exist (I know this is not possible but I am presenting a hypothetical argument) I could either change my opinion about his existence or I could ignore/dismiss the incontrovertible evidence that tells me that the man on the moon could not possibly exist. If I do the former, I am doing what Nietzsche would want and what I would want. But if I did the latter, I this would be dogmatic and the man on the moon thesis would be an example of dogma. If I obtained similar incontrovertible evidence that Socialism was not possible I could be accused of dogma if I ignored this evidence and continued to believe in socialism. This is the possibility I am entertaining when I say that my views on the Capitalist-Socialist dichotomy could change. There are lots of things that get in the way of clear thinking apart from dogma (understood in this sense) and I will explore some of them in the independent thinking series. With regards to my reservations about ideology and Marxism in particular, I should say that I don't believe that one man (i.e. Marx) can know everything about economics, sociology and political theory to the extent that he can provide a blueprint for a future society - as some believe, though not Marx himself. The great German sociologist Max Weber regarded Marx's economics and sociology as 'ideal types' - or ways of looking at the world which help us to understand it better. BUT - ideal types do not describe the world as it is. Yet some Marxists do not appreciate this. This is why I don't believe that Marxism as an ideology should provide a model for a socialist society - though there are aspects of Marx's writings that could contribute towards the creation of a better world. There is much in Marx to admire - or I wouldn't have studied him for nine years and made his works such a large part of my Doctoral thesis. That will have to do for now. I do appreciate your comments. If there is anything else that is not clear, please ask. I don't mind being distracted in a good cause - and providing clarity is a good cause
apologies if I gave the impression that I had any feelings concerning your reservations about Marxism as an ideology. My point was the use by commentators of labels such as 'dogma' and 'ideology' in what I considered, a derogatory fashion.
I think we both agree that beliefs motivate people in a variety of ways and that ideas need to be reviewed and updated as required, hence your use of Nietzsche quote.
I also encountered Max Weber and the tool he called 'ideal types'. Haven't or didn't investigate his analysis of Marx's theories, I suppose that he regards all such theories as such. Just downloaded a PDF, which I will read. Cheers.
I have to say that words fail me. I thought you were on the right side, but so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut would say. There is no credible (credible) evidence that the world is cooling, while there is an overwhelming mass of evidence that overall world temperature is rising very steeply. And even if I am eventually proved wrong, and you are proved right, what sort of idiot would take a gamble on the fate of the world by advocating (if you do - I'm not clear on that) continuing the emission of 'greenhouse' gases just on the off-chance that you may be proved right in the future.
Furthermore, all sorts of other things come into the equation. It is indisputable that a) oil and gas are going to run out by around 2100 (we are arguably now, this year, at peak oil), b) we have mined and extracted all the easily obtained metal ores, c) once diesel fuel goes, electric or hydrogen will not be able to replace it in order to continue the increasingly difficult extraction of ores and other work such as construction, d) human population expansion will also peak pretty soon, but in the meantime many other species will be driven to extinction, e) we do not know which species are indispensable to our survival - there is a 'chain of being' from bacteria to us, and if one essential link is destroyed all above it will perish, f) global climate change ( no matter what version or causes or increase or decrease in temperature you believe) and destructive human farming and logging methods are destroying topsoil and vegetation at an unsustainable rate, so food production will also plummet around 2100, g) the deleterious effects on the environment and us caused by pollution and micro-plastics can be added to all that.
Lastly, I just don't see how you can argue, for example, that the North Atlantic is not getting warmer. You can see it in the slowing down of the Atlantic hot/cold water circulation currents, and the gradual appearance of warm water species in what used to be areas too cold for them. Then there is the very visible destruction of the ice cover on both poles. The vast majority of scientists say that global warming is a fact. Possibly a quarter of these scientists could be bought and sold for an expensive car, but most of them are just normal people with families. To imagine that hundreds of thousands of them are engaged in a vast conspiracy is nuts.
PS. Anyone who ever had any sort of faith that the so-called 'Labour' party would do anything useful apart from acting as an occasional proxy for the tory party (an action which is certainly not useful except for the establishment), needs to take a good look at their judgement processes.
Its' not about being on the right side or the wrong side Jams. If you want to believe in global warming then go ahead but I have seen plenty of evidence that the earth is cooling. But we won't know for certain until this solar cycle has ended. I never really had any faith in the Labour party and joined when Corbyn was elected leader in the hope that it could change - a forlorn hope as it turned out. On May 29th I did a piece entitled 'No I don't believe in global warming' in which I provide some links.