Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

97% of “climate scientists” thought Trump couldn’t win

December 18, 2016

97% of the UK media thought Brexit would lose.

97% of US political pundits thought Trump couldn’t win.

97% of polling models had an inbuilt, politically correct, confirmation bias.

97% of the US media thought Clinton would trounce Trump.

97% of the politically correct think climate is science.

97% of AGW fanatics believe the sun does not drive climate but that man does.

97% of climate funding goes to the religiously correct.

97% of “climate science” is religious belief.

97% of climate models have an inbuilt, religiously correct, confirmation bias.

97% of “climate scientists” thought Trump would be trounced.

97% of “climate scientists” are charlatans.

sol-invictus-2017


“Putin personally hacked Clinton” – US unintelligence agencies in a post-truth world

December 15, 2016

This is the post-truth world.

Now we have unintelligence agencies. In their world, Saddam had WMD, ISIS does not exist, the US won the Vietnam war and Saudi Arabia is a democratic paradise.

And Putin personally hacked Hillary Clinton and DNC.

They lost the election, they lost the recount and now, the plan is to subvert the Electoral College. It seems the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party and media surrogates are still in denial.

putin-huffpo

Of course this is based on hard evidence from the unintelligence agencies. (How come all this evidence has come only after a lost election).

Oh Dear!

The evidence

putin-hacking

Putin hacking personally

I like this from the American Thinker

image American Thinker

image American Thinker


 

“Anti-social” individuals can be identified at age 3

December 13, 2016

A new paper in Nature: Human Behaviour.

A. Caspi et al, Childhood forecasting of a small segment of the population with large economic burdenNature Human Behaviour 1, Article number: 0005 (2016), doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0005

The study following 1000 children in New Zealand found that by age 38,

A segment comprising 22% of the cohort accounted for 36% of the cohort’s injury insurance claims; 40% of excess obese kilograms; 54% of cigarettes smoked; 57% of hospital nights; 66% of welfare benefits; 77% of fatherless child-rearing; 78% of prescription fills; and 81% of criminal convictions.

But, the study goes on, the high social cost segment could be identified by age 3:

Moreover, variation in cohort members’ brain health at three years of age predicted with considerable accuracy which individuals would be members of the multiple-high cost segment 35 years later.

They define “brain health”:

At 3 years of age, each child in the cohort participated in a 45 minute examination that included assessments of neurological soft signs, intelligence, receptive language and motor skills. The examiners (having no previous knowledge of the child) then rated each child’s frustration tolerance, resistance, restlessness, impulsivity and lack of persistence in reaching goals. This examination yielded a summary index that we have termed brain health, a global index of the neurocognitive status of three-year-old children. Variation in brain health at three years of age significantly predicted economically burdensome outcomes in each sector, except injury claims.

They conclude

This research yielded two results. First, the study uncovered a population segment that featured as high cost across multiple health and social sectors. ……… Second, by linking administrative data with individual-level longitudinal data, the study provides the strongest effect sizes yet, measuring the connection between an at-risk childhood and costly adult outcomes in the population.

Suppose this study does indeed apply to developed societies generally. The question then becomes what should be done if a predictive test at age 3 reveals those likely to pose a high societal burden. Ideally one should identify the genetics or the development (or lack of development) upto age 3 which gives rise to the result and attack those. An obvious problem arises if genetics – which cannot be remedied – has a large influence. Since even the non-genetic causes are mainly unknown, it then becomes a case of finding remedial methods that can be applied after age 3 to reduce the social burden they could potentially pose.

A fascinating study but it again poses the challenge we will increasingly face as we learn to predict the potential behaviour of humans at an early age. If a potential sociopath can clearly be identified at a very early age, what then becomes the strategy for management of risk? Lock him up before he kills someone? Send him to behaviour correctional institution based on a prediction? If there is a large genetic component do we ban the parents from having further offspring?

Abstract: 

Policymakers are interested in early-years interventions to ameliorate childhood risks. They hope for improved adult outcomes in the long run that bring a return on investment. The size of the return that can be expected partly depends on how strongly childhood risks forecast adult outcomes, but there is disagreement about whether childhood determines adulthood. We integrated multiple nationwide administrative databases and electronic medical records with the four-decade-long Dunedin birth cohort study to test child-to-adult prediction in a different way, using a population-segmentation approach. A segment comprising 22% of the cohort accounted for 36% of the cohort’s injury insurance claims; 40% of excess obese kilograms; 54% of cigarettes smoked; 57% of hospital nights; 66% of welfare benefits; 77% of fatherless child-rearing; 78% of prescription fills; and 81% of criminal convictions. Childhood risks, including poor brain health at three years of age, predicted this segment with large effect sizes. Early-years interventions that are effective for this population segment could yield very large returns on investment.

Around the world, the population is ageing and total fertility rates are declining. As a result, nations increasingly view children and young people as valuable resources for the economic and social well-being of whole societies. This view is accompanied by public-policy interest in early interventions to help as many children as possible achieve their full potential. A key question concerns the potential size of the impact that might be brought about by interventions in the early years of children’s lives1,2 . Research teams that have followed up on small samples of children who were enrolled in intervention experiments carried out decades ago point to reductions in school leaving, unemployment, crime, obesity and even blood pressure3,4,5,6 . Some argue that today’s better-designed interventions might achieve greater reductions in adult problems than previous efforts7 (see also www.nuffieldfoundation.org, www.blueprintsprograms.com, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc and http://incredibleyears.com). Others assert that interventions for the youngest children will bring an even greater return on investment compared with interventions that begin when children are older8 . However, a skeptic could point out that return on investment for society will depend not only on an intervention’s capacity to ameliorate childhood risks, but also on how relevant those risks are for downstream adult functioning in the general population. Thus, to a large extent, the question of how much early-years intervention can lift health and social well-being and reduce costs depends on how strongly early-years risk factors are tied to adult outcomes in the population. Our own research and that of others suggests that while childhood risk factors do predict adult outcomes with statistical significance, the effect sizes are typically modest9,10,11 . The interpretation of these modest child-to-adult effect sizes is polarizing, and has sown confusion among scientists, policy makers and the public12,13,14 . On the one hand, claims are made that the ‘child is father of the man’, because continuity from childhood risks to adult outcomes is stronger than expected, given the long duration of follow-up. On the other hand, on the basis of the same data, warnings are issued about the myth of early-childhood determinism and about unwarranted overemphasis on childhood.

Here, we tackled the prediction question anew in the context of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study, a population-representative 1972–1973 birth cohort of 1,037 New Zealanders assessed at ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26, 32 and 38 years and followed from birth to midlife with 95% retention (Supplementary Information). We first integrated our longitudinal survey data and clinical data with multiple nationwide government administrative databases and electronic medical records. Then, using a novel segmentation approach, we tested the hypothesis that a small segment of the adult population accounts for a large cumulative economic burden and that this segment can be predicted with good accuracy from early childhood.


 

The CIA has been producing fake news for a long time and can “get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl”

December 12, 2016

cia

It sounds like just another conspiracy theory. The Russians hacked the Democrats and the Republicans the story goes. They released selected material from the Democrats via Wikileaks but did not do the same with the Republican material. This was to help Trump win. This is an “assessment” by the CIA (and 16 other intelligence agencies). The FBI is not so certain in their assessments. Note however that it is not contested that the material released by Wikileaks was genuine. 

In the 1980s most of the Iran-Contra stories were planted by the CIA. One remembers of course how the same constellation of agencies, led by the CIA, concluded on the presence of Saddam Hussain’s WMD. Here they even invented evidence for Colin Powell to present to the UN and make an utter fool of himself. One notes also that these same intelligence agencies all missed 9/11 though they had links with Bin Laden. They also missed – or chose to miss – the rise of ISIS completely.

While the war of words continue about Russian hacking and the US Election, it is not fanciful to conclude that the CIA is “faking” news again. The CIA has and does spend a lot of effort on manipulating news not only abroad but also on US soil. Operation Mockingbird has now been well documented and was reported on by the US Congress in 1976.

Operation Mockingbird was a campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network to help present the CIA’s views. It funded some student and cultural organizations and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA. The CIA’s use of journalists continued unabated until 1973, when the program was scaled back, finally coming to a halt in 1976 when George H.W. Bush took over as director.

In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966, Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated the allegations and published a report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis’s 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and The Washington Post.

The CIA fake news activities never stopped. Even the Washington Post wrote 2 weeks ago. I particularly like the quote from a CIA operative that “you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month”.

But – as we document below – the government and mainstream media are by far the biggest purveyors of fake news.

The Government’s Been Deploying Propaganda On U.S. Soil for Many Years

The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities found in 1975 that the CIA submitted stories to the American press:

Wikipedia adds details:

After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan [i.e. the rebuilding of Europe by the U.S. after WWII]. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers.

In 2008, the New York Times wrote:

During the early years of the cold war, [prominent writers and artists, from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Jackson Pollock] were supported, sometimes lavishly, always secretly, by the C.I.A. as part of its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was perhaps the most successful use of “soft power” in American history.

A CIA operative told Washington Post owner Philip Graham … in a conversation about the willingness of journalists to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories:

You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.

Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein wrote in 1977:

More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.

***

In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

***

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were [the heads of CBS, Time, the New York Times, the Louisville Courier‑Journal, and Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include [ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters], Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.

***

There is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements.

***

The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management.

***

Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings.

***

Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Timeand Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.

***

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Time magazine’s foreign correspondents attended CIA “briefing” dinners similar to those the CIA held for CBS.

***

When Newsweek was purchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. “It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from,” said a former deputy director of the Agency. “Frank Wisner dealt with him.” Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency’s premier orchestrator of “black” operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his “mighty Wurlitzer,” a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.)

***

In November 1973, after [the CIA claimed to have ended the program], Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general‑circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high‑level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy‑five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976.

***

Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side ….

“There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared” ….

An expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA now employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations. Whether or not his estimate is accurate, it is clear that many prominent reporters still report to the CIA.

A 4-part BBC documentary called the “Century of the Self” shows that an American – Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays – created the modern field of manipulation of public perceptions, and the U.S. government has extensively used his techniques.

The activity has continued under the Obama Administration and is clearly still ongoing.

And the government is treating the real investigative reporters like criminals … or even terrorists:

  • The government admits that journalists could be targeted with counter-terrorism laws (and here). For example, after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing aboutbad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge
  • In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of the bank’s wrongdoing, the Department of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this)

Postscript: See this and this.


 

Fake News at the NYT

December 6, 2016

It is conveniently forgotten – now – by the main-stream media that they are themselves experts in the art of publishing “Fake News”.

Lest we forget, this was one of the articles at the time claiming the presence of WMD in Iraq before the invasion.

NYT:

AFTEREFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to AssertAPRIL 21, 2003


 

“Multiculturalism” always gives fractured and segregated societies

December 5, 2016

It seems obvious. Multi-ethnic societies, even with well -developed sub-cultures, work very well under an over-riding common culture. In fact the over-riding common culture is dynamic and takes on parts of the various sub-cultures. But societies with parallel cultures with no over-riding common culture can only give a fractured society. It  prevents any common culture developing and inevitably gives ethnic segregation. For over 5 decades, these parallel cultures have been promoted by the liberal, social-democratic, do-gooding, misguided elite of Europe.

It is not at all surprising that the cities of Europe now have segregated and have no-go ghettos which consider themselves outside of the main society and not subject to the rules and behaviour expected in that society.

A report in the UK commissioned originally by David Cameron only emphasizes what seems obvious.

BBC: 

Public bodies in the UK have too often ignored or condoned divisive and harmful religious practices for fear of being labelled racist, a report says. A government-commissioned review into British social integration found ethnic segregation is growing in some places.

More emphasis should be put on British values, law and history in schools, and immigrants should take an “integration oath”, author Dame Louise Casey said. Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said he will study the findings “closely”.

The year-long Casey Review into the integration of minorities was commissioned by former prime minister David Cameron as part of the government’s efforts to tackle extremism.

The report – which sets out 12 recommendations – received more than 200 submissions from think tanks, community groups and academics. Dame Louise accused the government of falling short of an ambition – set out by then Home Secretary Theresa May five years ago – to do more than any other to promote integration.

The report recommends:

  • Schools should promote British values to help build integration, tolerance, citizenship
  • More English classes for isolated groups
  • A greater mixing among young people through activities such as sport
  • New immigrants could have to swear “an oath of integration with British values and society”
  • Councils should develop a list of indicators to highlight the potential breakdown of integration
  • The government should support a new programme to help improve community cohesion

Dame Louise warned that segregation, deprivation and social exclusion in some areas of Britain have coincided with a growth in what she describes as regressive religious and cultural ideologies. …….. 

Researchers heard Muslim tribunals have made life-changing decisions with no training, leaving women and children often feeling traumatised. Mosques often give women and girls regressive advice about lifestyle and clothes, Dame Louise added. She said too few leaders have dealt with issues, suggesting some fear being labelled racist or losing support in minority communities.

It seems so obvious and yet sanctimonious, self-righteous, group-think has been the hallmark of the liberal/left elite.

I repeat here my post from 2 years ago:

A “society” – to be a society – can be multi-ethnic but not multicultural

A “culture” is both the glue that binds any society of humans and lubricates the interactions within that society. It applies as well to a family or an association or a sports club or a company or a geographic area (say a country). The culture of any sub-society – a sub-culture – must be subordinated to that of the larger society it is  – or wants to be – part of.

Of course one can have – if one wishes – many different cultures within different sub-societies in a single geographic area. But if these sub-cultures are not subordinated to a larger culture then the sub-societies cannot – because it becomes a fatal contradiction – make up any larger society. Multiculturalism dooms that geographical area to inevitably be a splintered and fractured “greater” society – if at all.

The politically correct “multiculturalism” followed in Europe in recent times has effectively preserved and maintained each ethnic group in its own cultural silo and – inanely – made a virtue out of preventing the evolution of any overriding, common culture. This has been the fundamental, “do-gooding” blunder of the socialist/liberal “democrats” all through Europe. Creating a society of the future with a common culture as the glue has been sacrificed in a quest for some imagined God of Many Cultures. For an immigrant – anywhere – how could it be more important to keep the language of his past rather than to learn the language of his future? The “do-gooders” have prioritised living in the past to creating and living in a new future.

Hence Rotherham and Bradford or Kreuzberg or Rosengård or Les Bosquets,

Multi-ethnic communities particularly need both a glue and a lubricating medium. And that has to be an overriding common – new – culture and not some mish-mash, immiscible collection of sub-cultures – each within its own silo, insulated and held separate from all others.

  1. Multi-ethnic societies are inevitable around the world.
  2. A single society has a single culture.
  3. To have many cultures in one area – which are not subordinated to a larger culture (values) – is to exclude a single society.
  4. Promoting multiculturalism is to promote the fracturing of that area into many immiscible (inevitably ethnic) societies.

Multi-ethnicity – especially – requires a mono-culture to be a society at all.

Multi-ethnic and multi-cultural is separatism and serves to ensure that a single society will never be established.


 

A mealy-mouthed apology from Ban Ki-moon for UN cholera in Haiti

December 4, 2016

The  behaviour of the UN, as an organisation, far too often is a case of when the lowest common behaviour of the  collective prevails. Ban Ki-moon’s term has been distinguished by his cowardice. He makes politically correct noises as told to by his staff. I get the impression that during his term he put his own mind on the shelf and gave up on thinking. About lapses of UN behaviour, – whether about sexual predation by UN troops in Africa or about UN incompetence in Haiti – he has been remarkably circumspect.

Now Ban Ki-moon has made a half-hearted, mealy-mouthed apology about UN behaviour after the outbreak of UN cholera in Haiti but has, again, lacked the courage to address the fact that the UN introduced the cholera.

un-cholera

New York Times:

After six years and 10,000 deaths, the United Nations issued a carefully worded public apology on Thursday for its role in the 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti and the widespread suffering it has caused since then.

The mea culpa, which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon delivered before the General Assembly, avoided any mention of who brought cholera to Haiti, even though the disease was not present in the country until United Nations peacekeepers arrived from Nepal, where an outbreak was underway.

The peacekeepers lived on a base that often leaked waste into a river, and the first cholera cases in the country appeared in Haitians who lived nearby. Numerous scientists have long argued that the base was the source of the outbreak, but for years United Nations officials refused to accept responsibility.

Even though Mr. Ban’s office has acknowledged that the United Nations had played a role in the outbreak, his apology on Thursday was limited to how the world body responded to the outbreak, not how it started. 

“We simply did not do enough with regard to the cholera outbreak and its spread in Haiti,” Mr. Ban said on Thursday. “We are profoundly sorry about our role.” ………

……. The United Nations has not yet met its promise to eradicate cholera once and for all from Haiti, though Mr. Ban’s aides said on Thursday that they were close to raising the $200 million they say they need to fix Haiti’s water and sanitation system and treat Haitians for cholera. Nor has the United Nations yet raised an additional $200 million it wants for “material assistance” to families and communities that have suffered; donor nations have not yet come forward with the funds.


“Dalai Lama to meet with Donald Trump”

December 3, 2016

That headline hasn’t been written yet but don’t be surprised if it happens,  and soon, sometime before Trump’s inauguration.

Trump needs to rile China as much as possible while minimising any real retaliatory actions. What he does now, before his inauguration, can only lead to threats of retaliation but not any real actions. His mere acceptance of a call from Taiwan’s President has caused large waves. Something the US administration for 40 years has not had the courage to do. Maybe I attribute too much sense to Trump’s team, but I suspect that they have calculated quite well. They have thrown the current Obama administration into a bit of a spin and rendered them effectively impotent in their China posture.

The time before his inauguration is is a unique opportunity for Trump to make statements, meet people and indicate actions which he can later walk away from. It is the time for outrageous trial balloons. Few President-elects have had the nerve to do this before. I note his skillful, and almost Machiavellian, use of the selection process of “possible” members of his administration to confuse and mislead a hostile press.

The liberal/left press still don’t get it. Democracy is all about populism. It may be a trifle stupid but that is what democracy is about. The liberal “elite” – or any elite – cannot prevail in a democracy. They can no longer expect to be blindly followed by the unthinking plebs. They need to court popularity. I suspect there has been a lot more real thinking (whether by heart or by brain) by the Trump voters in deciding to vote for him than those who blindly followed their “elite” leaders in voting for Clinton.

Trump needs, while minimising the consequences, to rile China, India, France, Germany, Mexico, Canada and a few other “socialist” countries. He did Mexico during the campaign. He continued with India with his apparently effusive telephone conversation with Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan. Now he’s done China. The French/German/British investment in – and creation of  – some of the rebel groups now losing in Aleppo has been part of the US strategy disaster in Syria. A losing strategy that Trump will want to move away from. And that he will do by means of contacts with Putin.

It is more unlikely but I would not put it past him to make contact with Iran.

But meeting with the Dalai Lama is an easy decision to take.

Dalai Lama impersonating Trump (Good Morning Britain)

Dalai Lama impersonating Trump (Good Morning Britain)


 

Brexit – Trump market booms

November 23, 2016

The gloom and doom was a little overdone.

(original graphic Bloomberg)

(original graphic Bloomberg)

The Brexit and Trump effects have been to cause markets to boom.


 

Time to stop pretending that Islamic terror and ISIS have nothing to do with Islam

November 19, 2016

The paranoia about being considered Islamophobic now often leads to the abandonment of common sense. To be Islamophobic is not politically correct. That Islamic terrorists constitute a small number of all Muslims is obvious. But it borders on inanity to extend that to the claim that the terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. It is the concepts – sometimes medieval – contained within Islam which are currently providing the motivation and the justification for self-styled imams and “teachers” to spread the disease. They infect thousands (maybe millions) of immature and vulnerable minds and convert them into barbaric killers. To absolve – in these instances – Islam of being the source of the problem is to be naive. No doubt outdated values contained in Islam are being exploited but they are being exploited by Muslims to brainwash other Muslims. And that itself has something to say about Islam. There is no doubt either that the brainwashed  – who are also Muslims – are vulnerable and somewhat deficient in critical judgement. But that does not mean that Islam is not involved.

Anybody under 25 who claims to be a follower of any religion has of course been brainwashed into that belief as a child. Right now, among all the religions, Islam allows the creation of more terrorists than any other religion.

It is not often that I find the Archbishop of Canterbury in agreement with my views, but in this case he seems to have applied some of his common sense:

The Telegraph: Claims that the atrocities of the Islamic State have “nothing to do with Islam” are harming efforts to confront and combat extremism, the Archbishop of Canterbury has insisted.

Religious leaders of all varieties must “stand up and take responsibility” for the actions of extremists who profess to follow their faith, the Most Rev Justin Welby said.

He argued that unless people recognise and attempt to understand the motivation of terrorists they will never be able to combat their ideology effectively. 

It follows calls from a series of high profile figures for people to avoid using the term Islamic State – also known as Isil, Isis and Daesh – because, they say, its murderous tactics go against Islamic teaching and that using the name could help legitimise the group’s own propaganda.

But the Archbishop said that it is essential to recognise extremists’ religious motivation in order to get to grips with the problem. ……

His comments came during a lecture at the Catholic Institute of Paris, as he was awarded an honorary doctorate.

Of course the Archbishop did not say much about the fact that the vast majority of all Catholics and all Anglicans are brainwashed into following those religions as children by their parents.

I wonder what would happen if parents did not force children to follow a particular religion. Over 99% of all who claim to have a particular religious belief have been forced into that belief as children.