Iranians calling on Israel to help bring down the Theocracy!

Given the weekly marches, protests, and demonstrations screaming genocidal slogans against Israel in many of the cities of the Western world, one would think that if this is happening in the Western world, it would be even more extreme in the Middle East. It is not so. While there is a core group of demonstrators in the West who are, let's say, impassioned in their hatred of Israel and Jews, it is by no means a large number. The vast majority of the silent masses stand in support of Israel and are sympathetic to their existential battle against the extremists incessantly threatening them. A recent survey in the US found support for Israel was at some 70%.

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.

In Lebanon too, we can already see signs of the Lebanese rejecting Hezbollah. 

Many in the Middle East have already spoken out condemning Hamas, and even celebrating the death of Nasrallah In an earlier post (Palestinians speak out against Hamas .) I included YouTube videos covering this. 

Most recently following the direct attacks between Iran and Israel, Iranians are speaking out. They want Israel to destroy the Iranian leadership and allow Iranians to live the peaceful and prosperous lives they had before the Islamic revolution that created a dictatorial theocracy.

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 .  

Kisin responds to criticism of his Israel video

A week ago I posted an article featuring Konstantin Kisin's recent YouTube video discussing why he was supporting Israel together with some introductory comments (Kisin's case for Israel.  

I feel Kisin's video was a valuable contribution to this very widely discussed issue because it is comprehensive and clear. It covered all the arguments and his analysis is easy to understand and hard to refute.

Yet, it has elicited some responses, and Kisin has reacted by publishing a second video refuting the critique. 

This time I shall simply post it, without comment. It is self explanatory.

https://youtu.be/T3rzdQYjE_g?si=UZ1pzFJYNTxgGAg1

EV industry doomed without new battery technology

The EV dream is foundering. Almost daily, we hear of some sort of EV fire caused by unstable, fire-, and explosion-prone lithium-ion batteries. Add to this the lived experience of EV owners with long queues at chargers, even if available, and diminishing resale values. And worst of all for the car manufacturers, the buyers are leaving the field, and as a consequence, so are many manufacturers. 

So, the dream that most of the world would transition over the next decade to a majority of electric vehicles is becoming a pipe dream. Many of the claims were "heroic" and never achievable. Yet some governments were so convinced that they forecast bans on fossil fuel-based vehicles at future dates even within 10 years. Much of this rhetoric is being walked back, and it takes the most self-deluding politician to make such claims today. So, is the EV destined for the dustbin of history? Far from it!

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

Looking at this list, the weakest link in the EV dream is the battery technology. New battery technology can totally overturn the current decline.

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

But this is just a summary. If you need more detail, here are a couple of videos that provide more information.

So the EV dream may yet be realised, but not quite there yet.

and another.

The leading company in the development of the Gr-Al-Ion battery is an Australian company, GMG (Graphene Manufacturing Group), established by and working in collaboration with the University of Queensland and Rio Tinto.

So the EV dream may yet be realised, but not quite there yet.

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.

If you do not have the time here is a summary generated by NoteGPT

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. 🌍