Featured post
Why can't everyone condemn Hamas?
Following Hamas' atrocities in Israel, the media are awash with commentary, so I will keep my comments short. I am shocked by the willin...
Saturday 2 November 2024
Dumpster Fire
Sunday 27 October 2024
Iranians calling on Israel to help bring down the Theocracy!
The demonstrators are not all of one mind and really include four separate groups. There is a core group of Middle Eastern Islamists whose enmity is based both on religious background and sympathy for fellow Muslims. Again, this group is only a small proportion of the wider Muslim community, but given the recent migration from North Africa and the Middle East to Western countries, even a small number represents an increase in such extremists.
The second subgroup comes from the hard left. These are Marxists, anti-Western zealots who will join any group threatening Western society. Finally, we have a group that could be best labelled as 'useful idiots.' With little knowledge of the history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, they join in chants of "River to the Sea" without being able to identify the river or the sea, nor realizing they are calling for the annihilation of Israel.
Why, one could ask, are there so many of them? Indeed, why? What type of education creates such moral failure? And why are there so many in universities, where one would assume there are students who have the capability of thinking for themselves? One reason is no doubt due to the too many academics who are open or closet Marxists, critical of every aspect of Western civilization and indoctrinating their students.
So much for the West. In the middle east support for extremists has had a mixed history. In Gaza suveys have shown that support for Hamas just after the October 7 massacre was running at 80%. That is despite the barbarity of the attack on innocent civilians. So not exactly an encouraging result. When this survey was repeated recently after a year in which Hamas has been decimated and much of Gaza has been levelled, support for Hamas has dropped to just 8%! That is encouraging.
Here is the video; -
The vocal minority is having an undue influence on our perception, especially in a world where opinions are amplified by social media, and the mainstream media has been corrupted to push agendas rather than objectively report and analyse .
Friday 18 October 2024
Kisin responds to criticism of his Israel video
Tuesday 15 October 2024
EV industry doomed without new battery technology
While the relatively new EV technology is feeling pressure on many fronts:
- Long battery charge times
- Limited range
- Limited battery lifetime
- Unstable fire/explosion-prone battery technology
- Lithium is a difficult raw material requiring extensive mining and difficult extraction
So, now that I have set the scene, several new battery technologies seem to be on the horizon. One such technology is the Graphene-Aluminium-Ion (Gr-Al-Ion) battery. It does not use lithium, the source of many of the problems with the Li-Ion battery. It uses aluminium, which is abundant, light, easy to handle, and relatively easy to mine. It also uses graphene, a form of carbon that is manufactured from abundant, low-cost carbon. However, the manufacture of graphene is currently a difficult and expensive process and would have to be improved to make this technology viable at scale. The resulting battery, however, beats the Li-Ion hands down.
The Gr-Al-Ion battery:
- Charges 70x faster, meaning your laptop can be charged in minutes, not hours, and your EV can have a meaningful charge in the same time it would take with a petrol engine
- Has a longer lifetime – 3x as long as Li-Ion, implying a life of 30 years for an EV as opposed to the 10 years of a Li-Ion
- Is greener – eliminating the need for lithium and rare earths with complex supply chains
- Is safer – the Gr-Al-Ion battery operates at lower temperatures and does not cause fires or explosions
Tuesday 8 October 2024
Kisin's case for Israel
It has now been a year since the October 7 massacre of innocents that changed the world. While the world has seen many terrorist attacks, and many, disproportionately many, on Israel, the reaction of many in the Western world has been shocking. Instead of universal condemnation of a terrorist attack—the worst in terms of numbers and barbarity against Israel in its 75-year history—the event triggered a range of responses. These included celebration of the event, support for Palestinians following Israel’s response, repeated demonstrations in support not only of Palestinians but of Hamas, condemnation of Israel and all Jews, and antisemitic attacks on Jews around the world.
It seems this massacre exposed a hidden rift in our society. The event revealed the underlying values of many of our fellow citizens who do not share our values. It also exposed the weakness of politicians, business leaders, media commentators, and academics to speak out against the blatant vilification of Israel and Jews. By their inaction, these leaders have allowed antisemitic feelings, perhaps previously hidden, to become open. This has led to a breakdown of our communities and will take decades to heal.
Of course, there are many—in fact, a majority in most of the Western world—who do share our values, and slowly they are becoming more vocal about the failure of their leaders to speak up in support of fellow citizens and Israel’s right to defend itself.
Many commentators have analyzed the events of the past year. Recently, I came across a compelling analysis by Konstantin Kisin. He is an articulate and compelling debater, having won acclaim in his Oxford Union debate a few years ago. His analysis of Israel’s war provides a structured examination of the arguments for and against Israel. You can see the YouTube video below, and I strongly recommend it.
Summary
Konstantin Kisin shares his journey from neutrality to a clearer stance on Israel’s conflict, applying first principles thinking to analyze arguments from both sides.
Highlights
- 🗣️ Kisin initially had no opinion on the Israel conflict before the October 7th attacks.
- 📚 He engaged deeply with various perspectives to understand the complexities involved.
- 🔍 First principles thinking helped him dissect the arguments surrounding the conflict.
- ⚖️ Kisin compares October 7th to other historical terrorist attacks, emphasizing its unprecedented severity.
- 🏗️ He argues that the legitimacy of Israel cannot be dismissed based on historical grievances alone.
- 💔 Kisin addresses civilian casualties, stressing that responsibility lies with Hamas for their tactics.
- 📊 He concludes that Israel’s military actions, while tragic, are necessary for its survival against ongoing threats.
Key Insights
- 🔄 Importance of Context: Understanding the historical and emotional contexts is crucial but can often cloud logical arguments. Kisin emphasizes the need to strip away emotional narratives to grasp the core issues. 🌍
- ⚔️ Comparative Analysis: By comparing October 7th to other terrorist attacks like 9/11, Kisin highlights the disproportionate impact and severity of the violence against Israel, which serves to contextualize the response. 📈
- 🏛️ Legitimacy of States: The legitimacy of Israel’s existence is challenged by some, but Kisin argues that many nations were formed through similar histories of conflict, complicating the argument against Israel. 🌐
- 🔄 Nature of Warfare: Kisin points out that civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality of war, but emphasizes who holds responsibility for their safety and the ongoing violence. 📉
- 🎯 Hamas’s Strategy: The tactics employed by Hamas are designed to maximize civilian casualties, which Kisin argues shifts the moral responsibility back to Hamas rather than Israel. 🎭
- 📊 Casualty Ratios: He presents statistics showing that Israel is successful in minimizing civilian casualties compared to historical urban warfare, countering claims of indiscriminate attacks. 📊
- ⚖️ International Perspective: Kisin notes that any nation under similar threat would respond similarly to Israel, highlighting a double standard in international criticism. 🌍