Love him or hate him - his second collection of transcripts is out
 

LINK

Decided to check out what he is doing, and got surprised by this news, 5 months old. Already have the first volume, I am pleased to get the videos 61- 118 in writing now.

I predict a not so distant future when such videos will get banned and even the publication and buying of such books may put you at risk to get punished. Voices demanding that already are to be heard, and they become louder every day - even among politicians of major parties. Criticizing Islam can bring you into conflict with the law over "discrimination" already now, and a - small, but growing - part of the EU parliament members would like to see criticizing and disagreeing with the EU getting criminalized as well.

I predict that Skybird won't be able to find a single credible source that actually says that. I predict that he will carry on insisting it is true...

That is not much of a prediction as it is already a well established fact that he does so.

I have spent the last hour searching for an article on EUObserver I remember reading a while ago. It reported on an internal document in the European Parliament that stated something similar to Skybird's comment. I am not talking about the "political guidelines for the institutional information and communication campaign" and fighting negative reporting in the media and especially the internet, but about another thing altogether, although it was closely linked to the media issue.

What I can say with certainty that Skybird isn't wrong in his sources, but his interpretation is strongly influenced by our old friend Bruno Waterfield, who for some reason feels injured by the EU and will grasp on every single straw he can find. I'm all for a critical approach towards European integration, in fact, we should thank Skybird for providing an alternative viewpoint, but I do object rabid opposition without looking more deeply into the subject matter.

On a final note, I must say that I am shocked and disturbed by the increase in hostility against Skybird in the past couple of years. I realise that his comments put him on the wrong end of many a debate, but at least he was engaged in discussions in the past. Today he has been made into a pariah, an unworthy and undeserving position for such a long-standing and active member of Subsim.

That's what I noticed too.
Politicans wanting to make criticism and mocking illegal ?? Nothing new here. A politicians wet dream not seeing caricatures in newspapers every morning. But do they have the power and wits to realise something like that. No.

I am not running a private archive. I read a news, if it interests me, I do some search for more confirmation or the original material linked to in that news, or not - depends on the quality of the original news as I perceive it. I store it in mind. Period. In doing so, I am not any different than probably everybody else here. Only some pieces and articles land in a link archive, mostly essays of longer length and something in them that I really appreciated.

Both the EU commission and the EU parklimant had internal plans leaked, given, revealed or whatever over the past three years or so that indicate that a growing number of people sympathize with the idea to react to the decline in Eu enthusiasm by forcing people to nevertheless like it. One commissioner was stupid enough to openly say that the EU should mull legislation that can legally pursue criticism of the EU that the EU does not see as fair or balanced. The thing to note is that the EU is the instance to judge what is fair and balanced - one can easily imagine where this aims to end at. Additionally, in the same period of time I recall to have read short mentionings in the news about three or four members of EU parliament who also expressed disgust at EU critics, that expressing unbalanced views of the EU should see the opinion holder being held legally responsible, and that for repeated offenders even prison terms appear to be justified.

Well. Of course, "nobody plans to build a wall"... But the EU is a record holder in braking its own treaties, laws, and rules, especially regarding the Euro. I would also argue that when considering the national state, the democratic government, and the very obvious tendency towards a centralised, non-legitimated, planned-economy-run socialist superstate, and when even further considering my recent quotings and references to Murray Rothbard and H.-H. Hoppe (and others), when all this gets considered, then it should become clear that demanding critics of the EU project being silenced, by anonymous group pressure, by political correctness, by enforced opinion conformity and media with hunts and finally by legal oppression, is not just a scenario possible, but asppears to be the logical next stage of development. And I cannot say how often I read some small news on some minor detail everyday issue that just adds another small piece to the overall picture than shows this scenario becoming reality, slowly but surely.

=====

BTW, the link in the first posting is about Pat Condell's second volume with transcripts of his infamous youtube monologues.

Just in case people have not noted. :03:

It isn't the other members that changed, it was Skybird that changed. He's grown into the belief that it is his role to bring the enlightenment of fringe politics to the masses, and while that in itself is not particularly contemptible, he then treats the forum like it is his personal blog. He belittles those that disagree with him, and goes as far as telling people that they need to kill themselves. Given the contempt that he has dished out, particularly over the past few years, I can't see how member reaction against him would be shocking or disturbing at all. Sometimes contempt is earned.

Its all down to the content, sometimes he writes very good stuff sometimes he writes what could best be be described as paranoid deranged rubbish.
On this particular subject, while I agree with many points Skybird tries to make about the EU he regularly falls into misreprestation, or worse, arguements which are clearly and demonstrably entirely false which he will still repeatedly maintain are true long after the definitive contrary evidence is shown in black and white.

So to your earlier point.
Do you really think people don't look into the subject matter?

Caveat: I apologise if I sound off-putting in the post below, it's just been that sort of day.

Seeing how the GT has always been known for its disparate views and considering that I have been as active so I might have missed a couple of Sky's important posts, I will skip directly to your question.

The answer is a simple one. Considering how many times I've seen the same amount of :timeout: expressed on the question of European integration and that I have intervened several times in making sure the truth was told, I would say that YES, people do not look into the subject matter, especially when it comes to the EU. Part of it is its own doing. Right now I'm doing my Master's at the top educational institution on the EU and even here we have to put together so many different elements, from so many different sources in order to come to some sort of a coherent picture, that it makes our heads hurt. Sure we understand it, both on the legal/technical, political and practical level, but the devil's in the details and every single time we get a guest lecturer from the "den of the Beast" as some would call it, we learn something new to add to our puzzle.

On the other hand, a lot of the ignorance concerning the EU is no longer excusable with the internet. If you see good-old Bruno doing his shtick, you Google what piece of legislation he's put into his sights and you check if what he's saying is true. Anyone remember the "prevents dehydration" rant Waterfield (pun not intended) raised when the European Food Safety Authority said such a statement cannot be printed on water bottles as it is untrue? Well, after everyone got their panties in a bunch, I was the one who searched for the EFSA decision, the Directive in question and more precisely, the article invoked in the decision. Guess what happened afterwards? People for the most part calmed down and entered a rational discussion, as simple as that.

In short, yes people do not look into the subject and the GT is a prime example of some people having a knee-jerk reaction. Sometimes I'm part of it, sometimes you are, sometimes Skybird is. However, the reaction to such posts is not hostility towards the poster, but a calm and objective approach to the issue at hand. Whether or not the poster in question takes it up, well, that's their problem, what's important is for others to see the truth and learn from it. If you get to help someone along the way, all the better. :up:

I see what you are saying Respenus, however it is aimed in the wrong direction.
There are a multitude of examples on this forum covering everything from ballons or water to toys religion voting and immigration.
What you have is someone who takes the latset rant from Ganley, Farange or Condell and insists it is true without looking at the details and then still insists it is true after all the details have been posted which show it to be false.
It even happens with him posting links to Daily Fail stories where the story he is posting finishes up by saying the story isn't true.
So you are correct that some people go into one without looking deeply(or even briefly) at the subject matter, but the person you are trying to defend just happens to frequently be a prime example of that very thing you are complaining about.

[ maybe a bit Off-topic, but dont think i should open a new thread.
Basically a comment.
Regardless of how some discussion end(are they supported well, or are false? are they informative too? or ''paranoid deranged rubbish''?etc
ofcourse we want to keep it civilised and for extremes there are forum rules so we dont end with insults :)),
I want to say that i am happy that such discussions take place, that there is that dialogue between forums users , exchange of information, critique/complaints and, for me at least, lots of different comments and points of view of the various topics :up: . One of the things that make me visit these forums quite often, i have to say.]

Perhaps I should have paid more attention to how I structured my argument, as my previous post was not directed at anyone. It was merely a reply to your question whether or not I think people look into the subject they discuss. Since the EU was the issue at hand, I said that the majority of posters I see here in fact do not and let's not even enter into the eternal confusion between the Council of Europe and the EU with their respective courts (this is especially emblematic of individuals coming from the UK).

As concerns Sky, I'm not defending his arguments or where he gets them. If you go back to my first post in this thread, you will see I mention my favourite EU-critical journalist and how obsessed the man is with attacking the EU. My problem was with people attacking Skybird just because he posted something he read, but could not find the link. Hell, I spent an hour searching for it and I would had found it, but I have to study for my exams. I wanted to show that Skybird's credibility, as much as someone may question, is not completely without reprieve. I followed that sentiment in my second post, where I said that each time something like this appears, an objective and distant position has to be taken. As for everyone's experience with Skybird, well, I admitted not having followed closely the discussions here, so I am not aware of any specific posts people had in mind.

I personally consider this issue closed. Skybird, love him or hate him, is as much a member of this community as everyone else. If we can still interact with some amount of decency with yubba, there is no reason why Sky shouldn't be privy of the same respect. Disprove his statements, don't attack the person.

As for Pat Condell, well I haven't listened to him in a while. Perhaps I should check up on his latest work.

Yes, and as I said in my first response.....Its all down to the content, sometimes he writes very good stuff sometimes he writes what could best be be described as paranoid deranged rubbish.