I would like to try something different. Imagine you are on trial. The charge is murder. There are two possibilities here: You either committed the murder or you did not commit the murder. To use the legal terms, you are either Guilty or you are Innocent. This is not a false dichotomy, it is impossible to partially murder someone. You may be guilty of a different crime like manslaughter, but on the charge of murder you are either guilty or you are innocent. The judge asks you for your plea and your lawyer replies "Not Guilty". The prosecution makes their case, your lawyer makes yours. Witnesses are called, questions are asked and cross-examinations are conducted. Then prosecution makes their closing argument and your lawyer makes yours. Now your fate is in the hands of 12 people you've never met before as they leave the court room to deliberate.
If you've never seen the film "12 Angry Men", then I highly recommend it because it is a masterpiece with a spectacular performance from Henry Fonda. In the film Henry Fonda is a juror and he manages to keep his head while all about him are losing theirs and blaming it on him. I bring this up because the argument he makes is the one I'm making. The jurors will deliberate, sometimes for hours, sometimes for days, but they will continue deliberating until they have their verdict. In your case the jury returns and the judge asks them for their verdict. The foreman stands up and says "We find the defendant Not Guilty."
It is very important to recognise something. The jury has not said that you are innocent, they have said that there is not enough evidence to prove your guilt. As it is the prosecution that has made the positive claim that you are guilty, they have the burden of proof and they must meet it. Remember, you have not claimed that you are innocent, only that the prosecution cannot make the case that you are guilty, hence your plea of "Not Guilty".
There is a difference between saying someone is innocent and saying someone is not guilty.
Now you are a smart bunch so you probably know where I'm going with this.
I would like to try something different. Think about God (I'll use the Abrahamic God, but feel free to substitute in another). Does he exist? There are two possibilities here: God either exists or God does not exist. This is not a false dichotomy, it is impossible to partially exist. God may have existed at some point and since vanished, but with regards to this exact moment God either exists or God does not exist. The skeptic is asked if he or she believes in God and the skeptic replies "No." The believer makes their case and the skeptic makes theirs. Historians are cited, testimonies are given and points are argued. Now I must make up my mind and think about the arguments made by both sides.
I am now a juror and I must now keep my head while everyone else may be losing theirs. I may think about this for hours, days, months or even years. I will continue to turn this question over in my head until I come to a conclusion. When asked for my verdict, I stand up and I say "I do not believe that God exists."
It is very important to recognise something. I have not said that God does not exist, I have said that there is not enough evidence to prove that God does exist. As it is the believer that has made the positive claim that God does exist, they have the burden of proof and they must meet it. Remember, the skeptic has not claimed that God does not exist, only that the believer cannot make the case that God does exist, hence the reply of "No."
There is a difference between not believing that God exists and believing that God does not exist.
Tuesday, 1 August 2017
Monday, 31 July 2017
Thoughts on How Atheism is NOT a religion
Religion (Noun): A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
First, I would like to thank the YouTuber Rationality Rules for this definition of religion. While not perfect, it the best one I could find and one that encompasses all major religions of the world. I would also recommend his channel to any who appreciate those who debunk bogus claims.
Now for my rant.
I was not surprised to learn that there are people out there who believe atheism is a religion. I was surprised to learn just how many of them there are and I'll be honest, it's hard not to wonder if their parents were brother and sister. Then my brain tells me that you don't win an argument by accusing someone of being the product of incest so I bury these thoughts and attempt to see if I can't convince them of their mistake. I often can't and as such these dense motherfuckers are currently the bane of my life. So I'm here, ranting to you because sometimes a rant is needed. So please read through this and help me maintain some level of inner peace.
I've defined "religion" above, but I have not yet defined "atheism". My first response to anyone claiming atheism is a religion is to define it clearly. Fortunately "atheism" is an easy word to define if you just split it up into the root word and the prefix. "Theism" is defined as the belief in a god or gods. The prefix "a-" means a lack of something. Amoral people lack morals, Apolitical people lack political views, Asexual people lack a sexuality. From this we can clearly see that the definition of "atheism" is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Now here is where I struggle to remain calm because there is clearly no overlap between the definition of religion and the definition of atheism.
First, atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is in fact the lack of a belief. The theist will counter by saying that atheists believe there is no god, they believe in the big bang and they believe in evolution. None of these are correct. Lack of belief in god is not the same as believing there is no god. It's similar to your beliefs about the colour of my shirt. I will tell you that the shirt is either black or white. If you don't believe my shirt is black, that does not mean you believe it is white or vice versa. You likely lack belief in my shirt's blackness because you have no evidence for said blackness! As for the Big Bang and Evolution, believing in these is not necessary for an atheist because atheism makes no claims about the origin of the universe or how humans came to be.
Second, atheism does not concern itself with the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, it is only concerned with the existence of a god or gods. You will find atheists in all kinds of different scientific and philosophical schools debating life, the universe and everything. The only thing regarding the cause that all atheists agree on is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that a god did it.
Third, there are no devotional or ritual observances of any kind in atheism, we don't celebrate Darwin's birthday or pray to Richard Dawkins. We tend to leave this kind of superstition to the religious.
Fourth, there is no moral code in atheism, atheism is one position on one issue. Our moral codes come from ourselves, our families and our societies and as such, they have nothing to do with atheism.
Now I can already hear the response of the moronic saying how the definition of religion I chose deliberately leaves out atheism so this time, I'm going to use the broadest definition of religion that I can.
Religion (Noun): A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Well even with this broad definition, I would argue that atheism is neither a pursuit nor an interest. Atheism is not a pursuit because it's not something people do, it actually describes something they don't do. It would be like saying that one of my pursuits is not collecting stamps. Atheism is not an interest either because there's nothing to learn from atheism. It's a lack of belief and that's it, there's nothing more.
Even if I was inclined to be generous and grant that atheism did fit the broad definition, I would point out that the definition is meaningless. If anything to which someone ascribes supreme importance can be a religion, then being a fan of Chelsea FC is a religion, as is watching the films of Quentin Tarantino. Both of these things require more of my time than atheism so my religion would either make me a Chelsean or a Tarantinite.
Ok, I think I'm finished now. Thank you all for reading.
First, I would like to thank the YouTuber Rationality Rules for this definition of religion. While not perfect, it the best one I could find and one that encompasses all major religions of the world. I would also recommend his channel to any who appreciate those who debunk bogus claims.
Now for my rant.
I was not surprised to learn that there are people out there who believe atheism is a religion. I was surprised to learn just how many of them there are and I'll be honest, it's hard not to wonder if their parents were brother and sister. Then my brain tells me that you don't win an argument by accusing someone of being the product of incest so I bury these thoughts and attempt to see if I can't convince them of their mistake. I often can't and as such these dense motherfuckers are currently the bane of my life. So I'm here, ranting to you because sometimes a rant is needed. So please read through this and help me maintain some level of inner peace.
I've defined "religion" above, but I have not yet defined "atheism". My first response to anyone claiming atheism is a religion is to define it clearly. Fortunately "atheism" is an easy word to define if you just split it up into the root word and the prefix. "Theism" is defined as the belief in a god or gods. The prefix "a-" means a lack of something. Amoral people lack morals, Apolitical people lack political views, Asexual people lack a sexuality. From this we can clearly see that the definition of "atheism" is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Now here is where I struggle to remain calm because there is clearly no overlap between the definition of religion and the definition of atheism.
First, atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is in fact the lack of a belief. The theist will counter by saying that atheists believe there is no god, they believe in the big bang and they believe in evolution. None of these are correct. Lack of belief in god is not the same as believing there is no god. It's similar to your beliefs about the colour of my shirt. I will tell you that the shirt is either black or white. If you don't believe my shirt is black, that does not mean you believe it is white or vice versa. You likely lack belief in my shirt's blackness because you have no evidence for said blackness! As for the Big Bang and Evolution, believing in these is not necessary for an atheist because atheism makes no claims about the origin of the universe or how humans came to be.
Second, atheism does not concern itself with the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, it is only concerned with the existence of a god or gods. You will find atheists in all kinds of different scientific and philosophical schools debating life, the universe and everything. The only thing regarding the cause that all atheists agree on is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that a god did it.
Third, there are no devotional or ritual observances of any kind in atheism, we don't celebrate Darwin's birthday or pray to Richard Dawkins. We tend to leave this kind of superstition to the religious.
Fourth, there is no moral code in atheism, atheism is one position on one issue. Our moral codes come from ourselves, our families and our societies and as such, they have nothing to do with atheism.
Now I can already hear the response of the moronic saying how the definition of religion I chose deliberately leaves out atheism so this time, I'm going to use the broadest definition of religion that I can.
Religion (Noun): A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Well even with this broad definition, I would argue that atheism is neither a pursuit nor an interest. Atheism is not a pursuit because it's not something people do, it actually describes something they don't do. It would be like saying that one of my pursuits is not collecting stamps. Atheism is not an interest either because there's nothing to learn from atheism. It's a lack of belief and that's it, there's nothing more.
Even if I was inclined to be generous and grant that atheism did fit the broad definition, I would point out that the definition is meaningless. If anything to which someone ascribes supreme importance can be a religion, then being a fan of Chelsea FC is a religion, as is watching the films of Quentin Tarantino. Both of these things require more of my time than atheism so my religion would either make me a Chelsean or a Tarantinite.
Ok, I think I'm finished now. Thank you all for reading.
Saturday, 29 July 2017
Thoughts on Islamophobia
I am an Islamophobe. I certainly hope this admission has come as a surprise, but I'm trying to make a point here (especially to those of you who aren't surprised). Islamophobia is defined as the fear or hatred of Islam or Muslims. I hate Islam, just like I hate all religions and therefore I fit the definition of an Islamophobe No doubt many of you have heard this word before and some of you might have even used this word to describe someone. Well right now I'm asking you to stop doing that. Not because my feelings are hurt by this word or because I'm afraid of the label. I'm asking because Islamophobia is a sloppily defined word that has become a way of stifling criticism towards that which must be criticised. This is why we must eliminate this word from our vocabularies.
Islamophobia is defined as the fear or hatred of Islam or Muslims. The biggest problem with this definition is how it conflates fear or hatred of Islam with fear or hatred of Muslims. Islam is an ideology while Muslims are people. As an ideology Islam must be open to criticism, ridicule and even hatred. Whether people want to admit it or not, Islam is an ideology which treats women as second class citizens, permits the institution of slavery, and calls for the death of blasphemers. This is why I hate Islam and why all rational thinking people should too. The same however does not go for Muslims. Muslims like Maajid Nawaz do not subscribe to such ideas and call for a reformation of Islam. For this reason hating all Muslims is irrational and cannot be defended.
Another problem with the definition of Islamophobia is how it conflates hatred and fear. While hatred and fear can be related, it is important to distinguish between the two. Fear requires a perception of danger and is therefore always felt in response to something else. I myself and scared of heights, but right now I do not feel that fear. If you take me to the roof of a building and ask me to look down, then I'll start wishing I had worn the brown pants. Hatred on the other hand needs only that the object of hate be what it is and is therefore a constant. This is why I feel hatred towards Islam no matter where I am. If the purpose of the term "Islamophobia" is to combat bigotry, then it does itself no favours in demonising those who feel fear and lumping them in with those who hate.
Moving away from the definition of the word, we have the problem of the word itself. There is no equivalent word for any other ideology. There's no Christianophobia, Conservophobia, Liberalphobia, or Fill-in-the-blank-phobia. Islam has received special protection by society that it does not deserve. Every idea must be placed under scrutiny because that is how we figure out which ideas are good and which ones are bad. Good ideas do not need to be protected from criticism because they stand up to criticism. Bad ideas only survive when they are protected, but why do we protect them? Well I'm ashamed to say the answer lies with the political left.
I'm a leftist. I'm actually very proud of that, but sometimes my fellow leftists make that hard for me. My biggest problem with the left is how far they will go to protect people's feelings. That's where this comes from. In the western world Muslims are a minority so the left bends over backwards to protect them from anything that makes them feel unwelcome. When this takes the form of opposing hate speech targeted at Muslims from actual bigots, this is actually a very laudable thing (unless it takes the form of rioting at which point it becomes another embarrassment). However the left also stifles criticism of Islam in the name of protecting feelings. The Southern Poverty Law Center even went as far as to label Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim critic of Islam, and the aforementioned Maajid Nawaz, a liberal Muslim reformer, as Anti-Muslim extremists. UC Berkeley (the home of the Free Speech Movement) recently canceled a speech by Richard Dawkins also because of his views on Islam. All the left needs is one word: Islamophobia. It gets worse though, because while the left silences critics of bad ideas, they give platforms to those who espouse them. Most notable among these is Linda Sarsour, co-chair of the 2017 Women's March. Sarsour is an advocate of Sharia Law saying that the system is "reasonable". The same system that would have me killed as a blasphemer is deemed reasonable by a champion of the Left.
I hate an ideology that allows people to own slaves, that demeans women and would have me killed. That makes me an Islamophobe. This word is a tool to silence criticism of an ideology that needs to be criticised. We don't give any other ideology this level of protection because we understand the need for the scrutiny of ideologies. So please, let's get rid of this fucking word.
Islamophobia is defined as the fear or hatred of Islam or Muslims. The biggest problem with this definition is how it conflates fear or hatred of Islam with fear or hatred of Muslims. Islam is an ideology while Muslims are people. As an ideology Islam must be open to criticism, ridicule and even hatred. Whether people want to admit it or not, Islam is an ideology which treats women as second class citizens, permits the institution of slavery, and calls for the death of blasphemers. This is why I hate Islam and why all rational thinking people should too. The same however does not go for Muslims. Muslims like Maajid Nawaz do not subscribe to such ideas and call for a reformation of Islam. For this reason hating all Muslims is irrational and cannot be defended.
Another problem with the definition of Islamophobia is how it conflates hatred and fear. While hatred and fear can be related, it is important to distinguish between the two. Fear requires a perception of danger and is therefore always felt in response to something else. I myself and scared of heights, but right now I do not feel that fear. If you take me to the roof of a building and ask me to look down, then I'll start wishing I had worn the brown pants. Hatred on the other hand needs only that the object of hate be what it is and is therefore a constant. This is why I feel hatred towards Islam no matter where I am. If the purpose of the term "Islamophobia" is to combat bigotry, then it does itself no favours in demonising those who feel fear and lumping them in with those who hate.
Moving away from the definition of the word, we have the problem of the word itself. There is no equivalent word for any other ideology. There's no Christianophobia, Conservophobia, Liberalphobia, or Fill-in-the-blank-phobia. Islam has received special protection by society that it does not deserve. Every idea must be placed under scrutiny because that is how we figure out which ideas are good and which ones are bad. Good ideas do not need to be protected from criticism because they stand up to criticism. Bad ideas only survive when they are protected, but why do we protect them? Well I'm ashamed to say the answer lies with the political left.
I'm a leftist. I'm actually very proud of that, but sometimes my fellow leftists make that hard for me. My biggest problem with the left is how far they will go to protect people's feelings. That's where this comes from. In the western world Muslims are a minority so the left bends over backwards to protect them from anything that makes them feel unwelcome. When this takes the form of opposing hate speech targeted at Muslims from actual bigots, this is actually a very laudable thing (unless it takes the form of rioting at which point it becomes another embarrassment). However the left also stifles criticism of Islam in the name of protecting feelings. The Southern Poverty Law Center even went as far as to label Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim critic of Islam, and the aforementioned Maajid Nawaz, a liberal Muslim reformer, as Anti-Muslim extremists. UC Berkeley (the home of the Free Speech Movement) recently canceled a speech by Richard Dawkins also because of his views on Islam. All the left needs is one word: Islamophobia. It gets worse though, because while the left silences critics of bad ideas, they give platforms to those who espouse them. Most notable among these is Linda Sarsour, co-chair of the 2017 Women's March. Sarsour is an advocate of Sharia Law saying that the system is "reasonable". The same system that would have me killed as a blasphemer is deemed reasonable by a champion of the Left.
I hate an ideology that allows people to own slaves, that demeans women and would have me killed. That makes me an Islamophobe. This word is a tool to silence criticism of an ideology that needs to be criticised. We don't give any other ideology this level of protection because we understand the need for the scrutiny of ideologies. So please, let's get rid of this fucking word.
Thursday, 27 July 2017
Thoughts on God's Perfection (or Lack Thereof)
I found a man on twitter who welcomed any atheist to address issues they have about Christianity with him. I was intrigued and hoped I would have an illuminating discussion with someone who knew their stuff. Alas, I was wrong. He had no idea how to prove his claims or really how to make a point. One topic that did come up however was the perfection of the god of the Bible. Now as an atheist, I obviously don't believe that God exists, but what if he did? Would this god be perfect? My answer is a resounding "NO" because frankly, I think I could do better. In this post I'm going to list 10 things I would do differently if I was God.
1. I would provide irrefutable proof of my existence.
If I was God, there would be no such thing as an atheist. While I can't speak for all atheists, I feel rather confident in saying that the majority of atheists are atheist because they feel that there is insufficient evidence to prove there is a god. Not only would there be no atheists, but there would only be one religion because as an omnipotent being, I can convince anyone and everyone to believe that I exist. This would remove what I consider to be the greatest source of division in today's world. I would like to make it clear that I would not force people to believe I exist. I would provide the proof they needed so they could willingly believe in me. Even the Ken Hams of the world would accept my existence as I would be able to convince them due to my omnipotence.
2. I would write a holy book that is not open to interpretation.
The biggest problem with the Bible, the Quran or indeed any holy book is that they were all written by flawed men. This has led to not only different religions, but different religious denominations within the same religion. In Christianity alone you've got Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans and that is only scratching the surface. An omniscient god writing a holy book that is crystal clear in its message would eliminate the possibility of different branches, thus removing yet another division from society.
3. I would drop the demand that people worship me.
Kim Jong-un demands that people worship him. Josef Stalin demanded that people worship him. Adolf Hitler demanded that people worship him. People who demand worship are not worthy of worship. I myself am more likely to worship you than god. If I demanded worship as a god, I would not be worthy of it.
4. I would revise the Ten Commandments.
The first (no other gods), second (no graven images), third (Lord's name in vain), fourth (sabbath day), fifth (honouring parents), seventh (adultery), ninth (false witness) and tenth (no coveting) commandments all need to be straight up abolished. I would add things like no owning slaves and no raping to this special list of ten things I'd want people to adhere to. An omniscient god should have come up with a list of ten that can't be made better by a guy like me.
5. I would abolish Heaven and Hell.
I would have good people reincarnated so they could live another life and continue to do good in the world. Evil people would simply be dead and left that way. Infinite punishment for a finite crime is immoral no matter how you phrase it so eternal torture in hell is unacceptable to me. Now I'm not stupid enough to believe people are good or evil. I'm aware that many people would fall somewhere in between. I would observe these people, see how likely they are to lead a good second life and make my decision from there. This may sound like too big a task, but no task is too big for an omnipotent and omniscient god.
6. I would end the requirement for circumcision.
I'll make this simple. What you do with your fun parts is not my business, even if I was God.
7. I would cease setting people up to fail.
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were set up to fail. An omniscient god would've known that they would eat from the tree of knowledge even with the command not to eat from it. Every time God tests somebody, he already knows if they'd pass or fail. Therefore he is setting some people up to fail. I myself would cut the pointless wastes of people's time and instead direct them on paths of self improvement, but that's just me.
8. I would enforce my own laws.
In addition to being omnipotent and omniscient, God is also omnipresent. This means if he wanted to, he could enforce his own laws any time one of them is broken no matter where. So if you're about to rape someone, you can bet that Steven Almighty will know about it and stop you. This is not a violation of free will unless the concept of a police force is also a violation of free will. Hell, even if it is, I'm alright with interfering with the free will of a rapist or anyone else who would violate another person's free will.
9. I would end inequality of all kinds.
One thing I would make crystal clear to all people is that everyone must be treated equally under the law. I would make clear that no race, gender, sexual orientation or whatever else makes someone superior or inferior to another. This is an area where God has clearly failed miserably given what he says about women. I certainly would not have a chosen people who I give the special privileges of owning other people.
10. As long as my laws were obeyed, I would mind my own business.
Being omnipotent, I would make sure I knew nothing about you up until the moment you decide to break one of my rules. See I don't care what you do and it's not my business either. Of all the things I loathe about the God of the Bible, the worst one is how he can convict you of thought crime and will damn you to hell for thinking the wrong thing. Your thoughts are yours alone and I want and would have no part of them. Think what you will.
So that's ten. I think I would do a better job than God, but then again, he hasn't set the bar very high. Hell, I imagine there's a great many things I haven't mentioned that you've thought of. If so, I'm another step closer to worshipping you my potential deities.
1. I would provide irrefutable proof of my existence.
If I was God, there would be no such thing as an atheist. While I can't speak for all atheists, I feel rather confident in saying that the majority of atheists are atheist because they feel that there is insufficient evidence to prove there is a god. Not only would there be no atheists, but there would only be one religion because as an omnipotent being, I can convince anyone and everyone to believe that I exist. This would remove what I consider to be the greatest source of division in today's world. I would like to make it clear that I would not force people to believe I exist. I would provide the proof they needed so they could willingly believe in me. Even the Ken Hams of the world would accept my existence as I would be able to convince them due to my omnipotence.
2. I would write a holy book that is not open to interpretation.
The biggest problem with the Bible, the Quran or indeed any holy book is that they were all written by flawed men. This has led to not only different religions, but different religious denominations within the same religion. In Christianity alone you've got Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans and that is only scratching the surface. An omniscient god writing a holy book that is crystal clear in its message would eliminate the possibility of different branches, thus removing yet another division from society.
3. I would drop the demand that people worship me.
Kim Jong-un demands that people worship him. Josef Stalin demanded that people worship him. Adolf Hitler demanded that people worship him. People who demand worship are not worthy of worship. I myself am more likely to worship you than god. If I demanded worship as a god, I would not be worthy of it.
4. I would revise the Ten Commandments.
The first (no other gods), second (no graven images), third (Lord's name in vain), fourth (sabbath day), fifth (honouring parents), seventh (adultery), ninth (false witness) and tenth (no coveting) commandments all need to be straight up abolished. I would add things like no owning slaves and no raping to this special list of ten things I'd want people to adhere to. An omniscient god should have come up with a list of ten that can't be made better by a guy like me.
5. I would abolish Heaven and Hell.
I would have good people reincarnated so they could live another life and continue to do good in the world. Evil people would simply be dead and left that way. Infinite punishment for a finite crime is immoral no matter how you phrase it so eternal torture in hell is unacceptable to me. Now I'm not stupid enough to believe people are good or evil. I'm aware that many people would fall somewhere in between. I would observe these people, see how likely they are to lead a good second life and make my decision from there. This may sound like too big a task, but no task is too big for an omnipotent and omniscient god.
6. I would end the requirement for circumcision.
I'll make this simple. What you do with your fun parts is not my business, even if I was God.
7. I would cease setting people up to fail.
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were set up to fail. An omniscient god would've known that they would eat from the tree of knowledge even with the command not to eat from it. Every time God tests somebody, he already knows if they'd pass or fail. Therefore he is setting some people up to fail. I myself would cut the pointless wastes of people's time and instead direct them on paths of self improvement, but that's just me.
8. I would enforce my own laws.
In addition to being omnipotent and omniscient, God is also omnipresent. This means if he wanted to, he could enforce his own laws any time one of them is broken no matter where. So if you're about to rape someone, you can bet that Steven Almighty will know about it and stop you. This is not a violation of free will unless the concept of a police force is also a violation of free will. Hell, even if it is, I'm alright with interfering with the free will of a rapist or anyone else who would violate another person's free will.
9. I would end inequality of all kinds.
One thing I would make crystal clear to all people is that everyone must be treated equally under the law. I would make clear that no race, gender, sexual orientation or whatever else makes someone superior or inferior to another. This is an area where God has clearly failed miserably given what he says about women. I certainly would not have a chosen people who I give the special privileges of owning other people.
10. As long as my laws were obeyed, I would mind my own business.
Being omnipotent, I would make sure I knew nothing about you up until the moment you decide to break one of my rules. See I don't care what you do and it's not my business either. Of all the things I loathe about the God of the Bible, the worst one is how he can convict you of thought crime and will damn you to hell for thinking the wrong thing. Your thoughts are yours alone and I want and would have no part of them. Think what you will.
So that's ten. I think I would do a better job than God, but then again, he hasn't set the bar very high. Hell, I imagine there's a great many things I haven't mentioned that you've thought of. If so, I'm another step closer to worshipping you my potential deities.
Tuesday, 17 May 2016
Thoughts on Why I call Donald Trump a Fascist
I admit, I haven't had enough drive in me to keep this up. It's a serious flaw in my character. Yet I sit here wondering whether or not the United States of America will elect a fascist billionaire as its next president. I am of course talking about Donald Trump. What started out as a hilarious joke is now terrifyingly close to being a reality. I used the word fascist to describe Donald Trump and I know that one should not throw around such words. If such words are overused, they lose their meaning and when real fascists show up, the label means nothing. Yet I am sitting here and I am perfectly comfortable calling Donald Trump a fascist. Why do I do this? The answer is simple: Because if the boot fits, you must wear it.
I will be using Dr. Lawrence Britt's fourteen defining characteristics of fascism and showing just how many of those boxes are checked by Donald Trump.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Donald Trump's campaign slogan is "Make America Great Again." Now I agree that a mere slogan is not enough to tick this box, so I also bring up his proclamation that "We (America) will have so much winning, you may get bored with winning." Still not enough? How about his continuing proclaimations that "We'll take our country back." I could go on, but I'd be here all night and we're only at #1. 1/1
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Well here's another one that's easy to prove. Donald Trump is someone who supports the use of torture, saying in one RNC debate that he would "bring back waterboarding and bring back a lot worse than waterboarding." Clearly Donald Trump doesn't know that the Eight Amendment to the US Constitution forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishments. Donald Trump has also called for the American military to target the families of suspected terrorists which is a war crime. On a lesser note, he also wants stricter regulations regarding the press to prevent them from being mean to him. 2/2
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people who have lots of problems... They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some I assume are good people." - Donald Trump.
That quote was in his campaign announcement speech. He says that the Mexican government is rounding up Mexican drug dealers, criminals and rapists and sending them to America, and in this group of drug dealers, criminals and rapists, some good people are hiding amongst them. It's not only Mexicans that Trump has identified as enemies. He called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States. I think we can safely say Trump is 3/3 so far.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Donald Trump wants the US Military to start flexing its muscles again. He has claimed that "There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am" which sounds like he's trying to say he'll make the military stronger. He also wants to appoint a "proper general" to "hit (ISIL) so hard your head would spin." This is not the first time he advocated such strategies as he promised to "Bomb the shit out of 'em" referring to ISIL. 4/4
5. Rampant Sexism
Donald Trump is a sexist. In other news the Pope is Catholic. Just like with item #1 I could go on for a long time with this one so I'll simply stick to three of his targets. During the early stages of the campaign, Donald Trump had to wonder about Carly Fiorina. Specifically how anyone could vote for someone with her face.
"Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" - Donald Trump
What about the time he got upset when Fox News' Megyn Kelly asked him some hard question. Donald Trump said "You could see she had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Yes, she had to be menstrual, not just doing her damn job. If this still isn't enough, do a google of "Donald Trump Rosie O'Donnell" and you will see a veritable smorgasbord of mysoginistic comments. 5/5
6. Controlled Mass Media
Fortunately Donald Trump is not yet in a position to control the media like a fascist would, but he has shown signs of intent. News organisations like The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Buzzfeed and Politico, all of whom aren't kind to him aren't allowed at his rallies. He also wants to loosen defamation laws which the Associated Press reported as being at odds with "widely held conceptions of constitutional law." This is what Donald Trump wants to do and he doesn't have the power of the presidency yet. It's not a stretch to imagine he'd want to do more once he has it. 6/6
7. Obsession with National Security
Donald Trump doesn't have many concrete policy proposals, but one he does have is he plans to build a wall along the US-Mexican border (which he will make Mexico pay for). The purpose of this wall is to keep out the Mexican drug dealers, criminals and rapists. He wants to prevent Muslims from coming to America because he wants to keep out terrorists. He even doesn't want the US to take in Syrian refugees fearing that they could be "the ultimate Trojan horse." 7/7
8. Religon and Government are Intertwined
Donald Trump in his infinite modesty said the his book "The Art of the Deal" is only the second best book ever written. He said the best book is the Bible saying "You can't beat the Bible" and "Nobody loves the Bible more than me." Now I don't believe for a moment that he actually thinks that, but he's pandering to Evangelical Christians. In his speeches he invokes God, like when he claimed he would be "the best jobs president God ever created." He also says that people will be saying "Merry Christmas" during the holiday season, showing that he buys into the myth that is the War on Christmas. While I would make a far more believable Christian than Donald Trump, it is clear that Trump will use Christianity to his own advantage. 8/8
9. Corporate Power is Protected
For a start Donald Trump wants to lower the Corporate Tax rate to 15% and he wants to repeal the estate tax. These are two proposals that would greatly benefit corporate types like Trump himself. His plans would give tax cuts to the rich and, according to the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center "boost the after-tax incomes of the wealthiest households by an average of more than $1.3 million a year". It's really not surprising that Trump wants to protect the interests of those like himself. 9/9
10. Labor Power is Surpressed
I am unable to find much about Donald Trump's policies regarding Labor. So I will grant him the benefit of the doubt. 9/10
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Again, I am unable to pin him down on this one so he gets a pass. 9/11
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
This one is easy to nail him to. He advocates violence towards protesters at his rallies, he wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants en masse (because they're drug dealers, criminals and rapists), he supports the use of torture as I mentioned earlier, he supports the use of capital punishment, I could go on, but I've already been here awhile and I've still got two more to do. 10/12
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Donald Trump is a crony capitalist. Here is an article from the New York Times outlining his practices better than I could http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/opinion/campaign-stops/donald-trump-crony-capitalist.html?_r=0
Here's another one from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-d-barris/donald-trump-crony-capita_b_8949138.html
Thanks for the assist. 11/13
14. Fraudulent Elections
Well since he's not in power, I can't really say he checks this box. 11/14
So Donald Trump his 11 of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism. I think that is justification enough to call him what he is. Donald Trump is a fascist.
I will be using Dr. Lawrence Britt's fourteen defining characteristics of fascism and showing just how many of those boxes are checked by Donald Trump.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Donald Trump's campaign slogan is "Make America Great Again." Now I agree that a mere slogan is not enough to tick this box, so I also bring up his proclamation that "We (America) will have so much winning, you may get bored with winning." Still not enough? How about his continuing proclaimations that "We'll take our country back." I could go on, but I'd be here all night and we're only at #1. 1/1
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Well here's another one that's easy to prove. Donald Trump is someone who supports the use of torture, saying in one RNC debate that he would "bring back waterboarding and bring back a lot worse than waterboarding." Clearly Donald Trump doesn't know that the Eight Amendment to the US Constitution forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishments. Donald Trump has also called for the American military to target the families of suspected terrorists which is a war crime. On a lesser note, he also wants stricter regulations regarding the press to prevent them from being mean to him. 2/2
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people who have lots of problems... They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some I assume are good people." - Donald Trump.
That quote was in his campaign announcement speech. He says that the Mexican government is rounding up Mexican drug dealers, criminals and rapists and sending them to America, and in this group of drug dealers, criminals and rapists, some good people are hiding amongst them. It's not only Mexicans that Trump has identified as enemies. He called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States. I think we can safely say Trump is 3/3 so far.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Donald Trump wants the US Military to start flexing its muscles again. He has claimed that "There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am" which sounds like he's trying to say he'll make the military stronger. He also wants to appoint a "proper general" to "hit (ISIL) so hard your head would spin." This is not the first time he advocated such strategies as he promised to "Bomb the shit out of 'em" referring to ISIL. 4/4
5. Rampant Sexism
Donald Trump is a sexist. In other news the Pope is Catholic. Just like with item #1 I could go on for a long time with this one so I'll simply stick to three of his targets. During the early stages of the campaign, Donald Trump had to wonder about Carly Fiorina. Specifically how anyone could vote for someone with her face.
"Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" - Donald Trump
What about the time he got upset when Fox News' Megyn Kelly asked him some hard question. Donald Trump said "You could see she had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Yes, she had to be menstrual, not just doing her damn job. If this still isn't enough, do a google of "Donald Trump Rosie O'Donnell" and you will see a veritable smorgasbord of mysoginistic comments. 5/5
6. Controlled Mass Media
Fortunately Donald Trump is not yet in a position to control the media like a fascist would, but he has shown signs of intent. News organisations like The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Buzzfeed and Politico, all of whom aren't kind to him aren't allowed at his rallies. He also wants to loosen defamation laws which the Associated Press reported as being at odds with "widely held conceptions of constitutional law." This is what Donald Trump wants to do and he doesn't have the power of the presidency yet. It's not a stretch to imagine he'd want to do more once he has it. 6/6
7. Obsession with National Security
Donald Trump doesn't have many concrete policy proposals, but one he does have is he plans to build a wall along the US-Mexican border (which he will make Mexico pay for). The purpose of this wall is to keep out the Mexican drug dealers, criminals and rapists. He wants to prevent Muslims from coming to America because he wants to keep out terrorists. He even doesn't want the US to take in Syrian refugees fearing that they could be "the ultimate Trojan horse." 7/7
8. Religon and Government are Intertwined
Donald Trump in his infinite modesty said the his book "The Art of the Deal" is only the second best book ever written. He said the best book is the Bible saying "You can't beat the Bible" and "Nobody loves the Bible more than me." Now I don't believe for a moment that he actually thinks that, but he's pandering to Evangelical Christians. In his speeches he invokes God, like when he claimed he would be "the best jobs president God ever created." He also says that people will be saying "Merry Christmas" during the holiday season, showing that he buys into the myth that is the War on Christmas. While I would make a far more believable Christian than Donald Trump, it is clear that Trump will use Christianity to his own advantage. 8/8
9. Corporate Power is Protected
For a start Donald Trump wants to lower the Corporate Tax rate to 15% and he wants to repeal the estate tax. These are two proposals that would greatly benefit corporate types like Trump himself. His plans would give tax cuts to the rich and, according to the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center "boost the after-tax incomes of the wealthiest households by an average of more than $1.3 million a year". It's really not surprising that Trump wants to protect the interests of those like himself. 9/9
10. Labor Power is Surpressed
I am unable to find much about Donald Trump's policies regarding Labor. So I will grant him the benefit of the doubt. 9/10
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Again, I am unable to pin him down on this one so he gets a pass. 9/11
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
This one is easy to nail him to. He advocates violence towards protesters at his rallies, he wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants en masse (because they're drug dealers, criminals and rapists), he supports the use of torture as I mentioned earlier, he supports the use of capital punishment, I could go on, but I've already been here awhile and I've still got two more to do. 10/12
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Donald Trump is a crony capitalist. Here is an article from the New York Times outlining his practices better than I could http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/opinion/campaign-stops/donald-trump-crony-capitalist.html?_r=0
Here's another one from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-d-barris/donald-trump-crony-capita_b_8949138.html
Thanks for the assist. 11/13
14. Fraudulent Elections
Well since he's not in power, I can't really say he checks this box. 11/14
So Donald Trump his 11 of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism. I think that is justification enough to call him what he is. Donald Trump is a fascist.
Tuesday, 16 June 2015
Thoughts on the Birther Movement
I just simply had to write this article. Great news everyone, Donald Trump is running for president! Have I gone completely right-wing in thinking this is good news? No, I'm still a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communist (well done if you got the reference). This is great news because Donald Trump is crazy! He'll certainly be entertaining, and he almost certainly won't win. I imagine the first thing he'll do is get back to being a birther. If you follow American politics, you should be familiar with that term. For those of you who aren't, I shall explain.
Cast your mind back to 2011. Donald Trump was the leading voice of the birther movement. Birthers are people who believe that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya (where his father was born). These conspiracy theories had been floating around since 2008, but during the 2012 campaign, they resurfaced. Why does it matter where President Obama was born? Well Article Two of the United States Constitution outlines who can and cannot be president. There are three requirements.
"By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice-President must be:
Birthers claim that because Barack Obama was born in Kenya, he is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be president. There are two major problems with this claim. First, Barack Obama was not born in Kenya. Second, the constitution is rather vague on what constitutes a natural born citizen.
So why am I bringing this up? Well as I said Donald Trump is running for President and one of his fellow candidates is Senator Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is a Republican (like Donald Trump) and batshit insane (like Donald Trump). So why does a birther need to be riding Ted Cruz? Well the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya is a conspiracy theory. It is however an undisputed fact that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Senator Cruz says that because he has an American mother, he is a natural born citizen and thus eligible. Well that's all well and good, President Obama's American mother did not protect him from these Birther claims, so why should Ted Cruz have it any differently. Mr. Trump, you know your duty. You're just a concerned American citizen who wants to make sure the constitution is being upheld. I mean, what's the difference between Ted Cruz and Barack Obama? It surely can't be... No, that problem has been solved in America... right?
Cast your mind back to 2011. Donald Trump was the leading voice of the birther movement. Birthers are people who believe that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya (where his father was born). These conspiracy theories had been floating around since 2008, but during the 2012 campaign, they resurfaced. Why does it matter where President Obama was born? Well Article Two of the United States Constitution outlines who can and cannot be president. There are three requirements.
"By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice-President must be:
- Natural born citizens
- At least 35 years old
- Inhabitants of the United States for at least fourteen years
Birthers claim that because Barack Obama was born in Kenya, he is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be president. There are two major problems with this claim. First, Barack Obama was not born in Kenya. Second, the constitution is rather vague on what constitutes a natural born citizen.
So why am I bringing this up? Well as I said Donald Trump is running for President and one of his fellow candidates is Senator Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is a Republican (like Donald Trump) and batshit insane (like Donald Trump). So why does a birther need to be riding Ted Cruz? Well the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya is a conspiracy theory. It is however an undisputed fact that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Senator Cruz says that because he has an American mother, he is a natural born citizen and thus eligible. Well that's all well and good, President Obama's American mother did not protect him from these Birther claims, so why should Ted Cruz have it any differently. Mr. Trump, you know your duty. You're just a concerned American citizen who wants to make sure the constitution is being upheld. I mean, what's the difference between Ted Cruz and Barack Obama? It surely can't be... No, that problem has been solved in America... right?
Saturday, 9 May 2015
Thoughts on the Election
So I'm writing again after a long hiatus. In case you didn't know, the United Kingdom had a general election two days ago. I decided that I should write a piece about the winners and losers of this election because I am quite interested in politics and this is my home country. I'll be doing this country by country. I am defining a winner as any party that came away with more seats than they did at the last election in 2010
I'll start with the biggest of the four countries, England. England has 533 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. The biggest winners were the Conservative and Unionist Party (Often called the Conservative Party or simply the Tories). The Tories, one of the two biggest parties in the UK, are a centre-right party favouring free market capitalism with some eurosceptic elements. They came away with 21 more English seats than in 2010, bringing their total of English seats to 319. The Labour Party were also winners in England. Labour, the main rivals of the Tories, are a centre-left party favouring social democracy and closer ties with the European Union. They added 15 English seats bringing their total to 206. It pains me to say it, but another winner was the United Kingdom Independence Party or UKIP. UKIP are a right-wing party who are deeply eurosceptic and who favour tougher controls on immigration. Thankfully they only gained 1 seat, giving them a total of 1 (To make it better, their leader Nigel Farage who I've spoken of previously did not win his seat). With the two major parties winning (and UKIP), that must mean that there were losers. Just one party can be described as losers in Britain. They are the Liberal Democrats or the Lib-Dems. The Lib-Dems are a centrist party favouring social liberalism. They got hammered by the voters losing 37 of their 43 seats in England, leaving them a total of 6. It seems going into a coalition with the Conservatives was a bad idea. That leaves one English seat unaccounted for. It went to the Green Party of England and Wales. They are a left-wing party favouring eco-socialism. They retained the seat they won in 2010.
Moving on now to Scotland. Scotland has 59 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. There was only one winning party in Scotland. It was the Scottish National Party or the SNP. In 2010, they had 6 seats. Now they have 56 seats. The SNP are a centre-left to left-wing party who above all else want Scotland to be independent. The popularity of the SNP has soared since the referendum on Scottish independence which they lost. It was more bad news for the Lib-Dems as they lost 10 of their 11 Scottish seats, but the biggest losers in Scotland were the Labour Party. Historically Scotland has been a Labour stronghold. This election though saw them lose 40 of their 41 seats. Imagine if the Democrats in America lost the Northeastern states. That's the best comparison I can think of. The Tories managed to keep hold of their Scottish seat.
Wales is the third largest country having 40 seats in the House of Commons. All in all there wasn't much change in Wales. The Tories did manage to pick up 3 seats in Wales giving them 11 seats. Labour lost a seat bringing them down to 25 and the Lib-Dems lost 2 seats leaving them with just the one seat. Wales' other seats are held by Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales. Plaid Cymru are the Welsh equivalent of the SNP, a centre-left to left wing party who above all else want Wales to be independent. The difference is Plaid Cymru aren't anywhere near as popular in Wales as the SNP are in Scotland. The Welsh simply don't care much when it comes to independence.
Finally there are the 18 seats from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is unique in that the major British parties aren't major in Northern Ireland. That being said though, just like Wales, there wasn't much change in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there are five major parties. Going from left to right, we start with Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin are left-wing, Catholic, hardline republicans who want Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin are unique in that their Members of Parliament do not take their seats because they do not recognise the jurisdiction the House of Commons has over Northern Ireland and they refuse to swear loyalty to the British crown. Sinn Féin lost one of their seats leaving them with 4 seats. Next up is the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP). The SDLP are a republican party, but they are not hardline republicans like Sinn Féin. The SDLP have an alliance with the Labour Party and share similar policies. They kept hold of their 3 seats. In the centre we have the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (APNI). The APNI do not take sides when it comes to the political status of Northen Ireland. They have an alliance with the Liberal Democrats and like the Liberal Democrats they lost. They had 1 seat, now they have none. Moving onto the right we have the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). They are basically the anti-SDLP. The UUP used to have an alliance with the Conservatives in Britain, but that didn't work out. Despite this they were winners taking 2 seats in Parliament having had none. Finally we have the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). These guys are the anti-Sinn Féin. They are right-wing, Protestant and hardline unionists. Unfortunately for Sinn Féin the DUP are also the largest party in Northern Ireland taking 8 seats. That leaves one seat unaccounted for which was taken by an independent candidate.
So overall the winners were the Conservative Party, the SNP, UKIP and the UUP. Losers were Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Sinn Féin and the APNI. Now we have five years of a Conservative majority government. Yay...
I'll start with the biggest of the four countries, England. England has 533 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. The biggest winners were the Conservative and Unionist Party (Often called the Conservative Party or simply the Tories). The Tories, one of the two biggest parties in the UK, are a centre-right party favouring free market capitalism with some eurosceptic elements. They came away with 21 more English seats than in 2010, bringing their total of English seats to 319. The Labour Party were also winners in England. Labour, the main rivals of the Tories, are a centre-left party favouring social democracy and closer ties with the European Union. They added 15 English seats bringing their total to 206. It pains me to say it, but another winner was the United Kingdom Independence Party or UKIP. UKIP are a right-wing party who are deeply eurosceptic and who favour tougher controls on immigration. Thankfully they only gained 1 seat, giving them a total of 1 (To make it better, their leader Nigel Farage who I've spoken of previously did not win his seat). With the two major parties winning (and UKIP), that must mean that there were losers. Just one party can be described as losers in Britain. They are the Liberal Democrats or the Lib-Dems. The Lib-Dems are a centrist party favouring social liberalism. They got hammered by the voters losing 37 of their 43 seats in England, leaving them a total of 6. It seems going into a coalition with the Conservatives was a bad idea. That leaves one English seat unaccounted for. It went to the Green Party of England and Wales. They are a left-wing party favouring eco-socialism. They retained the seat they won in 2010.
Moving on now to Scotland. Scotland has 59 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. There was only one winning party in Scotland. It was the Scottish National Party or the SNP. In 2010, they had 6 seats. Now they have 56 seats. The SNP are a centre-left to left-wing party who above all else want Scotland to be independent. The popularity of the SNP has soared since the referendum on Scottish independence which they lost. It was more bad news for the Lib-Dems as they lost 10 of their 11 Scottish seats, but the biggest losers in Scotland were the Labour Party. Historically Scotland has been a Labour stronghold. This election though saw them lose 40 of their 41 seats. Imagine if the Democrats in America lost the Northeastern states. That's the best comparison I can think of. The Tories managed to keep hold of their Scottish seat.
Wales is the third largest country having 40 seats in the House of Commons. All in all there wasn't much change in Wales. The Tories did manage to pick up 3 seats in Wales giving them 11 seats. Labour lost a seat bringing them down to 25 and the Lib-Dems lost 2 seats leaving them with just the one seat. Wales' other seats are held by Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales. Plaid Cymru are the Welsh equivalent of the SNP, a centre-left to left wing party who above all else want Wales to be independent. The difference is Plaid Cymru aren't anywhere near as popular in Wales as the SNP are in Scotland. The Welsh simply don't care much when it comes to independence.
Finally there are the 18 seats from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is unique in that the major British parties aren't major in Northern Ireland. That being said though, just like Wales, there wasn't much change in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there are five major parties. Going from left to right, we start with Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin are left-wing, Catholic, hardline republicans who want Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin are unique in that their Members of Parliament do not take their seats because they do not recognise the jurisdiction the House of Commons has over Northern Ireland and they refuse to swear loyalty to the British crown. Sinn Féin lost one of their seats leaving them with 4 seats. Next up is the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP). The SDLP are a republican party, but they are not hardline republicans like Sinn Féin. The SDLP have an alliance with the Labour Party and share similar policies. They kept hold of their 3 seats. In the centre we have the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (APNI). The APNI do not take sides when it comes to the political status of Northen Ireland. They have an alliance with the Liberal Democrats and like the Liberal Democrats they lost. They had 1 seat, now they have none. Moving onto the right we have the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). They are basically the anti-SDLP. The UUP used to have an alliance with the Conservatives in Britain, but that didn't work out. Despite this they were winners taking 2 seats in Parliament having had none. Finally we have the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). These guys are the anti-Sinn Féin. They are right-wing, Protestant and hardline unionists. Unfortunately for Sinn Féin the DUP are also the largest party in Northern Ireland taking 8 seats. That leaves one seat unaccounted for which was taken by an independent candidate.
So overall the winners were the Conservative Party, the SNP, UKIP and the UUP. Losers were Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Sinn Féin and the APNI. Now we have five years of a Conservative majority government. Yay...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)