Physicists say religion will become extinct

[Comrade J]

Good news everybody :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

The data reflect a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.
The team's mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one.

The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.
Nonlinear dynamics is invoked to explain a wide range of physical phenomena in which a number of factors play a part.

One of the team, Daniel Abrams of Northwestern University, put forth a similar model in 2003 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6951/abs/424900a.html) to put a numerical basis behind the decline of lesser-spoken world languages.
At its heart is the competition between speakers of different languages, and the "utility" of speaking one instead of another.

"The idea is pretty simple," said Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.
"It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility," he told BBC News.
"For example in languages, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of [the dying language] Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there's some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not."
The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

"In a large number of modern secular democracies, there's been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%," Dr Wiener said.
The team then applied their nonlinear dynamics model, adjusting parameters for the relative social and utilitarian merits of membership of the "non-religious" category.

They found, in a study published online (http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1375), that those parameters were similar across all the countries studied, suggesting that similar behaviour drives the mathematics in all of them.
And in all the countries, the indications were that religion was headed toward extinction.
"I think it's a suggestive result," Dr Wiener said.
"It's interesting that a fairly simple model captures the data, and if those simple ideas are correct, it suggests where this might be going.
"Obviously much more complicated things are going on with any one individual, but maybe a lot of that averages out."

[Robespierre Richard]

People just move onto other superstitions I think. I know plenty of "atheists" who have some kind of weird views to cope with being unable to control the future and the instability of life. Organized religion just isn't working out today just like the Roman Pantheon didn't work out in the late Roman Empire.

I'm okay with this though.

[The Man]

In my opinion, Religion is on it's very knees. Centuries ago, Religion was the utmost rule of many lands. If you went against it, your reputation was thrown away, and you sometimes could be punished. But is that happening anymore? No. It's slowly, but steadily dying off. It will take centuries though.

[bcbm]

its declining in some places, but religion is growing in many others. it may die out in the long, long term but i don't think we'll see any marked decrease in religious influence in the near future.

[The Man]

its declining in some places, but religion is growing in many others. it may die out in the long, long term but i don't think we'll see any marked decrease in religious influence in the near future.

Your right about how it is declining is some places, while growing in others, but remember that religion controlled EVERYTHING at one point in time. Just to see it die off in a few areas, is a very good sign for Anti-Theists/Militant Atheists.

[ComradeMan]

"non-affiliated with religion" does not mean atheist or non-religious, spiritual. My grandfather, buon'anima, was a deeply religious man who hated churches and never went there. I think the "mathematics" or science of this article are poor.

[Le Socialiste]

"non-affiliated with religion" does not mean atheist or non-religious, spiritual.


I agree. I know a number of people (including comrades) that reject religion in its organized, bureaucratic form - not necessarily religion in such terms as faith and spirituality. I, myself (at the risk of enduring the derision of my fellow comrades on this site), consider myself to be a part of this group: those that condemn the evils of organized religion yet remain highly spiritual. We do not align ourselves with the workings and biases of those "organized" elements within each respective faith. We reject religion, but we retain our spirituality.

Given this, I would readily welcome the decline of such institutions within the confines of organized religion as a whole. These specific bodies run counter to the needs and global struggles of working peoples everywhere, and therefore cannot meet the demands for a new kind of emancipatory politics. They essentially betray such movements, condemning them (and, indeed, themselves) to a long history of defeat and counterrevolution. Organized religion is reactionary in nature, and therefore is not wholly compatible with a socialistic society.

[hatzel]

Dr Wiener

Lol.





I don't really have a comment on this, so I'll just copy-paste from my lecturer's Facebook wall, as he posted this link up, too...


This research is obviously of the poopoo variety, I'm just provoking people here... But I'm sure that what we mean by 'religion' will change in the future, even if it's not going to be extinct as such.

:)

[NGNM85]

Wonderful news.

[tradeunionsupporter]

This is good news to me.

[daleckian]

The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.

hardly the same thing as atheism. in fact, there's no clear way to tell if it's atheist at all. it's like the people of Japan, who overwhelmingly have no religious affiliation, yet still participate in religious ceremonies, have ancestral shrines, etc.

Besides, can we really welcome the death of religions filled with superstition and hate when they're being replaced by...mass consumerism, overt individualism, and hate?

Hell, if anything happens, we'll probably just end up right back where we started--loosely defined, unorganized pagan religions:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-04-27-1Amillfaith27_ST_N.htm

And has anyone else noticed it's only white countries that are losing their religious followers? why do you think that is?

[daleckian]

Just to see it die off in a few areas, is a very good sign for Anti-Theists/Militant Atheists.

...which are both reactionary according to the works of Marx and Lenin, both whom thought that religion shouldn't be attacked outright, but allowed to "whither away" along with capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

And has anyone else noticed it's only white countries that are losing their religious followers? why do you think that is?

What the heck is a "white country"?

Luís Henrique

[RHIZOMES]

This is a trend that is only occurring in Western secular democracies where more people have the socio-economic privilege of not needing a superstitious crutch to lean on and having been given enough of an education to be familiar with reasons for religion's falsity. Those researchers need to realise that religion declining purely in the West won't make it 'extinct'.

In short: A very Eurocentric study.

[Dumb]

"The idea is pretty simple," said Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.
"It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility," he told BBC News.
"For example in languages, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of [the dying language] Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there's some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not."

The problem with this argument is that I'm not sure it really applies in this case; can one really call "non-religiosity" a group, per se, or is it merely the absence of a group? Sure, I've seen atheist/agnostic groups and clubs, but very few people are ever active in them.

[Delenda Carthago]

Greks will never abolish religion.We need something to curse on everyday lives.

[Princess Luna]

This is a trend that is only occurring in Western secular democracies where more people have the socio-economic privilege of not needing a superstitious crutch to lean on and having been given enough of an education to be familiar with reasons for religion's falsity. Those researchers need to realise that religion declining purely in the West won't make it 'extinct'.

In short: A very Eurocentric study.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg/800px-Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg.png
Notice of the 3 countries that have the highest percent of people who identify as "no religion", 2 of them are non-western.

[Luís Henrique]

This is a trend that is only occurring in Western secular democracies where more people have the socio-economic privilege of not needing a superstitious crutch to lean on and having been given enough of an education to be familiar with reasons for religion's falsity. Those researchers need to realise that religion declining purely in the West won't make it 'extinct'.

In short: A very Eurocentric study.

What is a "Western secular democracy"?

Luís Henrique

[Inquisitive Lurker]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg/800px-Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg.png
Notice of the 3 countries that have the highest percent of people who identify as "no religion", 2 of them are non-western.

Can you source this picture? I want to add it to my arsenal.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

No indication of the time period here? The quicker religion disappears the better, then maybe people will start fighting over what's important. I certainly don't see religion growing, unless humanity loses all its technology somehow and can't continue to explain things in a logical and scientific manner.


Can you source this picture? I want to add it to my arsenal.

On the Wiki atheism page under demographics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


Self-made from data in Phil Zuckerman: Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns, in: Michael Martin (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge University Press 2007.

[Franz Fanonipants]

everyone gonna become transhumanists.

xkcd will be a holy text.

basically bros if you aren't a total and off-putting nerd you should probably kill yourself because physicists are making social predictions.

what do those physicists have to say about class struggle guys?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

what do those physicists have to say about class struggle guys?

Yes, what do highly intelligent, highly educated, polymaths know about anything? What does probing the secrets of the universe, its function, and its creation have to do with religion?

What does a linguist know about politics? (I hope you know who I'm talking about).

[Terminator X]

This is a trend that is only occurring in Western secular democracies where more people have the socio-economic privilege of not needing a superstitious crutch to lean on and having been given enough of an education to be familiar with reasons for religion's falsity. Those researchers need to realise that religion declining purely in the West won't make it 'extinct'.

Hence why the headline of the article specifically notes "Religion may become extinct in nine nations" - it's not implying that religion will become extinct worldwide.

This phenomenon reminds me of Pannekoek's analysis of religion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/religion.htm), in which he predicts that religion will end up "withering away" not from attacks by overzealous, militant anti-theists, but through evolution of class consciousness:



Thus, in all probability, the sources which, in the history of mankind have up until now fed the forces of religion will dry up. No natural power will any longer be able to frighten Man; no natural catastrophe, no storm, no floods, no earthquake or epidemic will be able to put his existence in danger. By ever more accurate predictions, by an ever greater development of the sciences and of an ever more wonderful technology, the dangers will be limited to the maximum: no human life will be wasted. Science and its applications will make mankind the master of natural forces which it will use for its own needs. No powerful or not understood social force will be able to attack or frighten mankind: they will master their fate by organising their work and at the same time master all the mental forces of the will and passion. The anguish of having to go before a supreme judge who will decide the fate of each person for eternity — an anguish which has been responsible for centuries for so many terrors for defenceless mankind — will disappear as soon as co-operation between men and sacrifice for the community are no longer fettered by moral laws. Thus all the functions which religion fulfilled in men’s thought and feelings will be filled by other ways of thinking and feeling.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yes, what do highly intelligent, highly educated, polymaths know about anything? What does probing the secrets of the universe, its function, and its creation have to do with religion?

What does a linguist know about politics? (I hope you know who I'm talking about).

Noam Chomsky is p. much worthless guy.

Radical antitheism is also basically anti-working class/at least heavily lacking material analysis so...

[hatzel]

Yes, what do highly intelligent, highly educated, polymaths know about anything?

What does 'intelligent' mean? What does education bestow on us? Who decides who does and doesn't qualify as a polymath?


What does probing the secrets of the universe, its function, and its creation have to do with religion?
You'd have to tell us, because there aren't really any 'right' and 'wrong' answers here...those religious people who 'probe the secrets of the universe, its function and its creation' might give a different answer than you are hinting at...

[Franz Fanonipants]

basically unless these dudes literally quoted Karl Marx at every juncture their conclusions and findings are suspect and probably reactionary

/endthread

[Inquisitive Lurker]

those religious people who 'probe the secrets of the universe, its function and its creation' might give a different answer than you are hinting at...
The difference being scientific conclusion can be backed up with fact and objective observation, not mysticism and superstition.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

basically unless these dudes literally quoted Karl Marx at every juncture their conclusions and findings are suspect and probably reactionary

/endthread
You are being sarcastic, right?

[Franz Fanonipants]

You are being sarcastic, right?

hahahahahaha

[Franz Fanonipants]

The difference being scientific conclusion can be backed up with fact and objective observation, not mysticism and superstition.

basically bro i can tell that you are a "college recruiter"

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Noam Chomsky is p. much worthless guy.
Don't tell that to the libertarian socialists and social anarchists.

Point being he is not a Political Science professor, nor a Theologian. But if he wrote something on the subject of religion, you could do yourself a favor and read it.

Ever read Hegemony or Survival? I'll send you the MP3s if you want.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

basically bro i can tell that you are a "college recruiter"
That's a joke that only I get. Eventually others will get it too, but don't hold your breath, it will be a while.

[hatzel]

The difference being scientific conclusion can be backed up with fact and objective observation, not mysticism and superstition.

I actually meant those religious people who 'probe the secrets of the universe, its function and its creation' with scientific method. You know, religious quantum physicists and the like. But yeah, okay, whatever...

I'm going to tell you a story. One that you surely know. Big bang theory. Do you remember what happened when people first came up with that? Do you remember when those scientists who didn't agree were like 'hey, you, keep your Christianity out of science, don't use science to try to prove your ideas of creatio ex nihilo, that's not what science is for!'? And now, strangely, people use the big bang theory against Christians, claiming it proves they're wrong. How exactly did that happen? How did a theory go from being stupid because it was trying to use science to prove that Christianity is right, to being proof that Christianity is not right?

So, when you said '[w]hat does probing the secrets of the universe, its function, and its creation have to do with religion?', what were you hinting at? Is there any link here whatsoever? Considering the exact same thing, the exact same theory, the exact same piece of knowledge, can be taken as an attempt to prove religion, or an attempt to disprove religion, what exactly does 'probing the secrets of the universe, its function, and its creation have to do with religion?' I'm feeling somewhat lost here...



EDIT:


Don't tell that to the libertarian socialists and social anarchists.

You realise these are exactly the groups of people who are most likely to call Chomsky a no-good liberal so-and-so, right? People who don't belong to either of those groups are faaaaar more likely to consider him a significant anarchist than those who do, brooo...

[Inquisitive Lurker]

You've got your story backwards. The Big Bang theory was first originally condemned (in 1927) by the religious orthodoxy, until in 1979 when Vatican came forward and said there was no contradiction between the Big Bang and the Biblical creation story (myth).

Funnily enough, this endorsement urged on many scientists to disprove the Big Bang theory and come up with a model (like the coalescence theory) that would contradict it.

[hatzel]

You've got your story backwards.

Or not, because you're not listening / thinking (which doesn't surprise me at all, actually). Nothing to do with the religious orthodoxy, the Vatican, anything like that. Feel free to read this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cosmology-Controversy-Historical-Development-Theories/dp/069100546X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305223153&sr=8-1), which will tell you about all the cosmologists in the 20's and 30's who considered the mere idea of the big bang theory to be an attempt to apply religious expectations to physics. You know, those who believed in a universe of infinite age, stuff like that...who thought that those who were forwarding the big bang theory were trying to prove creatio ex nihilo in defense of their religious beliefs. Such accusations are historical fact. Because they happened. Any scientific mind accepts that people said things if they, you know, published papers with these accusations...

[Meridian]

Yes, what do highly intelligent, highly educated, polymaths know about anything? What does probing the secrets of the universe, its function, and its creation have to do with religion?
Anyone who thinks to themselves that they are actually discovering 'the secrets of the universe', are indeed religious. A secret has been made secret, it is hidden 'behind appearances'. Meanwhile, what physicists do is study 'the appearances'. Do you see the difference between a religious mystic and a physicist?

Physicists don't know whether religions will become extinct any more than a plumber does, it is simply not their field of research. Ask a sociologist or historian.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

The more science explains, the more religious explanations are overwritten. When there is nothing left to be explained, there is nothing left for religion to do. Scientists of all types are knowingly or unknowingly fighting against religion by enlightening the world to scientific truth. I include amongst those scientists sociologists, psychologist, neurologists, cultural anthropologists, those that explain man and civilization. They do away with the need for religion.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Don't tell that to the libertarian socialists and social anarchists.

Point being he is not a Political Science professor, nor a Theologian. But if he wrote something on the subject of religion, you could do yourself a favor and read it.

Ever read Hegemony or Survival? I'll send you the MP3s if you want.

sorry bro i'm not a scrub i only read lenin and marx ever.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

sorry bro i'm not a scrub i only read lenin and marx ever.

What a narrow viewpoint that must give you. To constrain yourself to one school of though. Read Bakunin, read Rousseau, read Proudhon. Read Mao. Read Guevara.

[hatzel]

And what do you read, Colonel Lurker? :)

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Everything I can. I've got a backlog of books. Currently I'm reading the The Good Book - A Humanist Bible, and The Gospel of Judas.

[hatzel]

The Gospel of Judas.

Do you mean the actual Gospel of Judas, that old Christian text, or has somebody just written a book with the same name? If you mean the former, then I've read it. If you mean the latter, then I've not even heard of it, but I wonder why you'd be wasting your time reading religious texts :rolleyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

The Good Book - A Humanist Bible

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:

In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,

And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;

Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:

Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
“In the garden stands a tree. In springtime it bears flowers; in the autumn, fruit. Its fruit is knowledge, teaching the good gardener how to understand the world. From it he learns how the tree grows . . .”
Eh.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What a narrow viewpoint that must give you. To constrain yourself to one school of though. Read Bakunin, read Rousseau, read Proudhon. Read Mao. Read Guevara.

lookit this fuckin scrub giving me a reading list.

[hatzel]

Okay, Franz, you're being silly. But so is Colonel Lurker for suggesting anybody bother reading Mao...

[Franz Fanonipants]

Okay, Franz, you're being silly. But so is Colonel Lurker for suggesting anybody bother reading Mao...

Silly nothing though, I don't need someone to give me a reading list, especially if that someone is literally an advocate of killing muslim babies to slake Western thirst for JUSTICE.

E: Mao is alright tho bro.

[hatzel]

an advocate of killing muslim babies

Don't strawman the guy. He's obviously a bit of a numpty, but he did clearly say he was talking about ground assaults to attack militias. Although it's 99% likely that some innocent kid would eventually get caught up in the cross-fire here, we shouldn't automatically expand what he advocates to include the inevitable consequence of that...I mean, we almost can, because he's clearly not speaking on a theoretical level, and actually suggesting that this whole plan goes ahead, but still, we should more precisely call him 'an advocate of actions which would almost inevitably result in the death of Muslim babies, should it ever be realised' :)

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think the thing is, though, that it's not a question of "should it ever be realized" but rather that the doctrine that he's spouting is currently killing muslims (baby or otherwise) worldwide every day.

What he's advocating is being carried out in real life, not theoretically. But then you knew that.

[hatzel]

I dunno...I'm a stickler for considering only what one literally said, you know? So this guy is advocating a military offensive, lead by the US, UN, EU and AU, to wipe all religion off the face of the planet. What he's advocating most definitely isn't happening. The issue comes that he is, of course, supporting the use of imperialist forces to achieve these ends, under the illusion that the ends in this case justify the means. He's not technically advocating any other act of imperialism, as we see today. He is, however, giving his consent to acts of imperialism in the event that he thinks that the goal of the act is justifiable, which is a completely different problem, and that's the issue. It's not a position I'm going to agree with, or defend him for, but, to be pedantic, he's only advocating this 'war on religion' (foolishly!), yet in the process he consents to the use of imperialism for his political ends, which is, of course, a far from anarchistic position to take...

Now it seems I'm defending him. I'm not. He's an eejit. Just so you all know...

[ZeroNowhere]

Ah ha, you are clearly defending this advocate of imperialism. Just wait till I tell the guys at the CU about this!


lookit this fuckin scrub giving me a reading list.Read Marlowe, read Grossman, read Wittgenstein. Read Plato. Read Bana. Read Nora May French.

Do this now, it is imperative.

[hatzel]

I literally love you, Zero, I literally love you :lol:

(So don't be a tattletale!)

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I dunno...I'm a stickler for considering only what one literally said, you know? So this guy is advocating a military offensive, lead by the US, UN, EU and AU, to wipe all religion off the face of the planet.
Again you deliberately misquote. I suggest military action to wipe out the militias, not the religions.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Do you mean the actual Gospel of Judas, that old Christian text, or has somebody just written a book with the same name? If you mean the former, then I've read it. If you mean the latter, then I've not even heard of it, but I wonder why you'd be wasting your time reading religious texts :rolleyes:

I am referring to the ATTRIBUTED Gospel of Judas (2nd / 3rd century text).

I study religion to combat it more effectively. Though I am genuinely interested in the Humanist Bible, as a substitute for the more common Bible, a book of myths, lies, violence, and false promises.

[hatzel]

Again you deliberately misquote. I suggest military action to wipe out the militias, not the religions.

Do I have to remind you that this entire topic came up because you were asked how you would wipe out religion, and one of your 5 points was with this US/UN/EU/AU campaign? Or did you forget that? Therefore, it seems as though your motivation for attacking the militias is in order to approach the eventual goal, the abolition of religion. Any of this ringing a bell?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Religion can not be wiped out militarily. Only the militias were military targets. The rest of the strategy must be education and suppression.

[greenwarbler]

physicists happen also to generally meet the criteria for socially inept creatures

[hatzel]

Religion can not be wiped out militarily. Only the militias were military targets.

So remind me again why exactly you're advocating US/UN/EU/AU military offensives, if not as part of your grand stategy to wipe out religion, I do appear to have forgotten...or, you appear to have forgotten...

[ZeroNowhere]

So remind me again why exactly you're advocating US/UN/EU/AU military offensives, if not as part of your grand stategy to wipe out religion, I do appear to have forgotten...or, you appear to have forgotten...No, you see, it's only part of the scheme. It is, in fact, a three-pronged offensive, a threesome if you will, in which education, military offensives and suppression act in a harmonic unity to abolish religion by decree. Through this, it is aspired to inflate the wit of mankind and spread generally the atheist will in order to bring death to these militant punks. By this, it is planned to derive great satisfaction in the name of mankind in general, through this execution of religious ecstasy. This would found a great nation of Liberty, whose citizens may be named Libertines, and shall by education enrapture the religious to convert them to godlessness.

</elizabethanslang>

[hatzel]

Oh...well I just don't see the point of doing any of that :lol: Colonel Lurker will surely tell us, though...

[Inquisitive Lurker]

So remind me again why exactly you're advocating US/UN/EU/AU military offensives, if not as part of your grand stategy to wipe out religion, I do appear to have forgotten...or, you appear to have forgotten...

It was point 5 as I recall, partially an afterthought, and it IS something that needs to be done. As I have stated many many times in this thread, all these marauding militias, religious and otherwise, need to be wiped out. This need stands on its own merits. Or, as I have asked before, do you sleep well knowing genocide is being carried out?

[hatzel]

As I have stated many many times in this thread, all these marauding militias, religious and otherwise, need to be wiped out.

Okay, militias are generally rather naughty, this I agree with. Of course there's the question of whether or not the purpose of the militia has any sway for you; the Maoists in particular might be quite upset if you start wiping out their peeps, you know...would a socialist militia be wiped out along with a reactionary militia? Or does the militia maybe have to be 'marauding' to be included? All important questions!


do you sleep well knowing genocide is being carried out?Indeed, I'm not particularly fond of genocide, once again we agree. However (and I feel we'll disagree here), I don't consider it any better for US/UN/EU/AU troops to do all the killing instead of the local militias. Killing's killing, irrespective of who does it...so your 'solution' doesn't quite approach the crux of the issue, in my humble opinion, even if we ignore the whole shameless imperialism thing...

[Revolution starts with U]

Your comments in this thread directly contradict your signature, bro.
How you think strengthening the power of NATO and the US armed forces will make it any easier to get those 3.5m out of the way is far beyond me....:thumbdown:

[hatzel]

Your comments in this thread directly contradict your signature, bro.

I thought you were talking about me and my 'make sense, not war' thing...I was just thinking 'what? What the hell did I do?!' :laugh:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Your comments in this thread directly contradict your signature, bro.
How you think strengthening the power of NATO and the US armed forces will make it any easier to get those 3.5m out of the way is far beyond me....:thumbdown:
You use a tool to do a job. You don't have to like the tool, you don't have to endorse the tool. But if it is the only tool you have, it's the one you use. Unless you are OK with the job not getting done, and the genocide continuing.

As I said before, I don't think the 5,000 members of RevLeft are ready to take up arms and do what needs to be done. Given a $1000 investment and a year of intense part-time training, and every member could be fighting fit. But no one is ready to commit to that.

[hatzel]

the 5,000 members of RevLeft

Ah, but you're forgetting that out of 29,000 members there are only 1,800...

[Inquisitive Lurker]

And I should also point out to my credit that this is not an imperialistic goal, by the simple fact that no imperialist power has any interest in doing it! It's a humanitarian military mission, one that no government wants a part of.

[Franz Fanonipants]

haha

"humanitarian" missions are routinely carried out by imperialist powers to protect and maintain imperial control.

gtfo and go to learning.

p.s. u are pretty dumb if you think cops, nat'l guard, and the military are enemies rather than recruiting pools.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

haha
p.s. u are pretty dumb if you think cops, nat'l guard, and the military are enemies rather than recruiting pools.

And you are pretty dumb (and a bad typist) if you don't know the level of indoctrination that goes on in each of these branches (except the National Guard). I've met 5 leftist of this bunch, and I have been looking.

In an insurrection to overthrow the government, there will be defections, desertions, and mutinies, but that you can't count on them in your preparations.

[Franz Fanonipants]

And you are pretty dumb (and a bad typist) if you don't know the level of indoctrination that goes on in each of these branches (except the National Guard). I've met 5 leftist of this bunch, and I have been looking.

In an insurrection to overthrow the government, there will be defections, desertions, and mutinies, but that you can't count on them in your preparations.

:rolleyes: