Page 1 of 3474 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›
Desmond Jones wrote:
“Bernard of Chartres used to say that we [the Moderns] are like dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants [the Ancients], and thus we are able to see more and farther than the latter. And this is not at all because of the acuteness of our sight or the stature of our body, but because we are carried aloft and elevated by the magnitude of the giants.”
Giants are outliers.
“Majorities have never wrought creative achievements. Never have they given discoveries to mankind. The individual person has always been the originator of human progress.”
RACE AND WILL IN THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER
Hitler’s Zweites Buch
This comment appeared in entry 'Savage Future - Part 2 (of 3)' on 03/08/14, 07:46 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Yes! I find that sort of thing very hard to do, I want to tell it like it is. It seems to come naturally to YKW. The false flag, the double standard.
What I’d suggest if you’re that way - and it’s a good way to be under normal circumstances but this is survival - is to treat it as the modern equivalent of the Great Game. The game has different rules to normal life.
This comment appeared in entry 'The unfolding hostility at the DT' on 03/08/14, 07:01 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Miss B’s opinion:
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/08/14, 11:28 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
“And, second, who’s the outsider and the “good guy’.”
OK, Neil. I’ve been biting my tongue, but this post forces me to wonder aloud, whose side you are on?
“The heroine of the immortal Breakfast At Tiffany’s”
That was one of the most disgusting (and gay) movies that I have ever seen. It provided, and still provides, perfect evidence that decadence had set in America already prior to the “hippie” stuff - which Jewish interests encourage right-wingers to blame in order to distract from the “hippie” motive of White male midtdasein; and to divert attention from Jewish sponsored immigration, feminism, “civil rights”, and sexual revolution.
This comment appeared in entry 'Savage Future - Part 2 (of 3)' on 03/08/14, 05:30 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
“I’ve read some excellent pieces by Dalrymple over the years, but that was not one of them, which was actually disappointing to me.”
It may have been the first or second “piece” I’ve ever read from the guy. I did not “praise” him, as Thorn said. I thought it was clever, provided some insight, I said it was “good” and provided the link. I was not looking for anything from him, that is what I found.
Later on I might talk about what you are doing with the word, “weird”.. where it comes from, etc.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/08/14, 05:06 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
You really are a weird dude. I’ve read some excellent pieces by Dalrymple over the years, but that was not one of them, which was actually disappointing to me.
What is much more worthy of reflection is my comment @11.
The “Russian Question” is a complex one, but I think my gut response (as a far away American) is correct. Russia is not going to lose access to its Crimean naval assets through making a bad bet on the continued subservience of the regime in Kiev. A “Ukraine for Ukrainians”, including Crimea, might tilt decisively towards the EU. The more firmly ensconced in the West the Ukraine were to become, the more likely it would be that it could successfully demand and obtain the removal of Russian bases, which would be a very serious blow to Russian naval power.
What the West should be doing is everything it can to bring Russia into a collaborative relationship. Contesting Crimea, which we can’t do anything about anyway without potentially unleashing a devastating war, is simply not worth jeopardizing the racial gains which could come from persuading the Russians that their future lay with and not against Europe.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/08/14, 03:46 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
those who adhere to the pattern of protecting Jews
...as it denotes who they represent; i.e., not Whites.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/08/14, 02:28 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Posted by Thorn on March 07, 2014, 07:09 PM | #
First off, Thornblosom, you walking piece of dog shit, I do not wish for you to refer to me as “Danny” a diminutive term of affection or condescension.
“That Dalrymple piece certainly didn’t live up to the high standards we’ve come to expect from him.”
Who is “we”, but your Jewish community?
“Leon is right.”
Of course he is not. He is governed by the same Jewish money that you are.
“Moreover, I’m amused at the fact YOU, Danny,”
I’ve asked you to not refer to me as “Danny” but you are who you are, a Jew.
“would praise a jewish author,”
It was a funny article. I liked it.
“yet, condemn anyone else that simply agrees with what a jew—ANY JEW—has to say.”
No, I condemn those who adhere to the pattern of protecting Jews, as you and Leon do.
You are schizophrenic, Danny.
No, I am not, Thornblossom.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/07/14, 08:20 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
That Dalrymple piece certainly didn’t live up to the high standards we’ve come to expect from him.
Leon is right.
Moreover, I’m amused at the fact YOU, Danny, would praise a jewish author, yet, condemn anyone else that simply agrees with what a jew—ANY JEW—has to say.
You are schizophrenic, Danny.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/07/14, 07:09 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
That takimag article by Dalrymple posted @1 was worthless (and I like him, Jewish or not).
Only because I said it, you lying faggot. For honest people, the rest is a moot point.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/07/14, 06:38 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
That takimag article by Dalrymple posted @1 was worthless (and I like him, Jewish or not).
Per GW, the concerns for nationalists are minimizing intra-white bloodshed and ill-feeling; supporting ethnocultural political self-determination and territorial sovereignty; and keeping America out of whatever series of conflicts may be inevitable.
My own opinion depends upon the character of Putin, which I am unsure about. Is he at heart a Russian WHITE nationalist, a Russian ORTHODOX nationalist, or merely a straightforward RUSSIAN (or even just “Putinian”) nationalist? If #1 or 2, I would tend to support him, on the ground that a strong Russia may be necessary for ultimate European survival, even in an increasingly globalized world economy. The traditional geocivilizational enemies came from the East and especially Islamic South. The former is probably not a threat for the foreseeable future. The latter, however, is both an ongoing demographic threat, and, given rabidly differential fertility levels, I suspect a future military one (especially as the idiot Europeans, in particular the social democratic types some “ethnocommuntarians” at MR somehow presume are better for the race than traditional conservatives, are dramatically reducing their already enervated national militaries - the better to shovel more money into their greedy public unions and various state pension schemes). The “clash of civilizations” between the West and the caliphate is not remotely over; indeed, it will steadily intensify over this century. We need a Russia which is strong, and strongly antagonistic towards Islam (whether ideologically or merely as a function of historically derived conflicting interests and power relations).
OTOH, if all Putin really cares about is maintaining himself at the top of a progressively more powerful country, a Russia without racial or civilizational loyalties, and as ready to exploit fellow whites as to resist nonwhites, then Western nationalists should seek to isolate him as much as possible, while constantly working to remove whites peoples from his orbit. Not that the EU is anything but anathema to nationalists, but the bigger “Europe” grows - provided the new numbers or nations are exclusively white, of course - the better it will be in the long run for white survival. Ultimately, if Russia can ever cleanse itself of criminals and its culture of corruption (a big “if”), the final goal of nationalists should be to bring Russia itself into “Europe” - a Europe extending from Ireland to Siberia, with plenty of living space for the future expansion of our race (of increasing relevance as we lose our racial hold on the New World).
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/07/14, 04:05 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Reading GW is helpful in understanding why the Jews and the English are such a perfect match.
It’s not an easy task to tell where Jewish intellectual skulduggery ends and GW style slime sophistry begins.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/07/14, 02:13 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
The Dark Side of the Ukraine Revolt
Conn Hallinan and Foreign Policy In Focus on March 6, 2014
This article is a joint publication of TheNation.com and Foreign Policy In Focus.
The April 6 rally in Cherkasy, a city 100 miles southeast of Kiev, turned violent after six men took off their jackets to reveal T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Beat the Kikes” and “Svoboda,” the name of the Ukrainian ultranationalist movement and the Ukrainian word for “freedom.”
– Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 12, 2013
While most of the Western media describe the current crisis in Ukraine as a confrontation between authoritarianism and democracy, many of the shock troops who have manned barricades in Kiev and the western city of Lviv these past months represent a dark page in the country’s history and have little interest in either democracy or the liberalism of Western Europe and the United States.
“You’d never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings,” reports Seumas Milne of the British Guardian. The most prominent of the groups has been the ultra-right-wing Svoboda or “Freedom” Party.
The demand for integration with Western Europe appears to be more a tactic than a strategy: “The participation of Ukrainian nationalism and Svoboda in the process of EU [European Union] integration,” admits Svoboda political council member Yury Noyevy, “is a means to break our ties with Russia.”
And lest one think that Svoboda, and parties even further to the right, will strike their tents and disappear, Ukrainian News reported on February 26 that Svoboda party members have temporarily been appointed to the posts of vice prime minister, minister of education, minister of agrarian policy and food supplies, and minister of ecology and natural resources.
Svoboda is hardly a fringe organization. In the 2012 election won by the now deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, the party took 10.45 percent of the vote and over 40 percent in parts of the western Ukraine. While the west voted overwhelmingly for the Fatherland Party’s Yulia Tymoshenko, the more populous east went overwhelmingly for the Party of Regions’ Yanukovych. The latter won the election handily, 48.8 percent to 45.7 percent.
Svoboda—which currently has thirty-six deputies in the 450-member Ukrainian parliament—began life in the mid-1990s as the Social National Party of the Ukraine, but its roots lie in World War II, when Ukrainian nationalists and Nazis found common ground in the ideology of anti-communism and anti-Semitism. In April 1943, Dr. Otto von Wachter, the Nazi commander of Galicia—the name for western Ukraine—turned the First Division of the Ukrainian National Army into the 14 Grenadier Division of the Waffen SS, the so-called “Galicia Division.”
The Waffen SS was the armed wing of the Nazi Party, and while serving alongside the regular army, or Wehrmacht, the party controlled the SS’s thirty-eight-plus divisions. While all Nazi forces took part in massacres and atrocities, the Waffen SS did so with particular efficiency. The postwar Nuremberg trials designated it a “criminal organization.”
Svoboda has always had a soft spot for the Galicia Division, and one of its parliament members, Oleg Pankevich, took part in a ceremony last April honoring the unit. Pankevich joined with a priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church near Lviv to celebrate the unit’s seventieth anniversary and rebury some of the division’s dead.
“I was horrified to see photographs…of young Ukrainians wearing the dreaded SS uniform with swastikas clearly visible on their helmets as they carried caskets of members of this Nazi unit, lowered them into the ground, and fired gun salutes in their honor,” World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder wrote in a letter to the Patriarch of the Ukrainian church. He asked Patriarch, Filret, to “prevent any further rehabilitation of Nazism or the SS.”
Some 800,000 Jews were murdered in Ukraine during the German occupation, many of them by Ukrainian auxiliaries and units like the Galicia Division.
Three months after the April ceremony, Ukrainians re-enacted the battle of Brody between the Galicia Division and Soviet troops, where the German XIII Army Corps was trying to hold off the Russians commanded by Marshall Ivan Konev. In general, going up against Konev meant a quick trip to Valhalla. In six days of fighting the Galicians lost two-thirds of their division and the XIII Corps was sent reeling back to Poland. The Galicia Division survivors were shipped off to fight anti-Nazi partisans in Yugoslavia. In 1945, remnants of the unit surrendered to the Americans in Italy, and in 1947 many of them were allowed to emigrate to Britain and Canada.
The US press has downplayed the role of Svoboda, and even more far-right groups like Right Sector and Common Cause, but Britain’s Channel 4 News reports that such quasi-fascist groups “played a leading role” in organizing the demonstrations and keeping them going.
In the intercepted phone call between US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, the two were, as Russian expert Stephen Cohen put it to Democracy Now, “plotting a coup d’état against the elected president of Ukraine.”
At one point in the call, Nuland endorsed “Yat” as the head of a new government, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party, who indeed is now acting prime minister. But she went on to say that Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok should be kept “on the outside.”
Her plan to sideline Tyahnybok as a post-coup player, however, may be wishful thinking, given the importance of the party in the demonstrations.
Tyahnybok is an anti-Semite who says “organized Jewry” controls the Ukraine’s media and government, and is planning “genocide” against Christians. He has turned Svoboda into the fourth-largest party in the country, and, this past December, US Senator John McCain shared a platform and an embrace with Tyahnybok at a rally in Kiev.
Svoboda has links with other ultra-right parties in Europe through the Alliance of European National Movements. Founded in 2009 in Budapest, the alliance includes Svoboda, Hungary’s violently racist Jobbik, the British National Party, Italy’s Tricolor Flame, Sweden’s National Democrats and Belgium’s National Front. The party also has close ties to France’s xenophobic National Front. The Front’s anti-Semitic former leader Jean-Marie Le Pen was honored at Svoboda’s 2004 congress.
Svoboda would stop immigration and reserve civil service jobs for “ethnic Ukrainians.” It would end abortion and gun control, “ban the Communist Ideology” and list religious affiliation and ethnicity on identity documents. It claims as its mentor the Nazi-collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose Ukrainian Insurgent Army massacred Jews and Poles during World War II. The party’s demand that all official business be conducted in Ukrainian was recently endorsed by the parliament, disenfranchising thirty percent of the country’s population that speaks Russian. Russian speakers are generally concentrated in the Ukraine’s east and south, and particularly in the Crimean Peninsula.
The US and the EU have hailed the resignation of President Yanukovych and the triumph of “people power” over the elected government—Ambassador Pyatt called it “a day for the history books”—but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Before the deployment of Russian troops this past week, anti-coup, pro-Russian crowds massed in the streets in Crimea’s capital, Simferopol, and seized government buildings. While there was little support for the ousted president—who most Ukrainians believe is corrupt—there was deep anger at the de-recognition of the Russian language and contempt for what many said were “fascists” in Kiev and Lviv.
Until 1954, Crimea was always part of Russia until, for administrative and bureaucratic reasons, it was made part of Ukraine. At the time, Ukraine was one of fifteen Soviet republics.
Ukraine is in deep economic trouble, and for the past year the government has been casting about for a way out. Bailout negotiations were opened with the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, but the loan would have required onerous austerity measures that, according to Citibank analyst Ivan Tchakarov, would “most probably mean a recession in 2014.”
It was at this juncture that Yanukovych abandoned talks with the EU and opened negotiations with the Russians. That turnaround was the spark for last November’s demonstrations.
But as Ben Aris, editor of Business News Europe, says, “Under the terms of the EU offer of last year—which virtually nobody in the Western media has seriously examined—the EU was offering $160 million per year for the next five years, while just the bond payments to the IMF were greater than that.”
Russia, on the other hand, “offered $15 billion in cash and immediately paid $3 billion.… Had Yanukovych accepted the EU deal, the country would have collapsed,” says Aris.
The current situation is dangerous precisely because it touches a Russian security nerve. The Soviet Union lost some twenty-five to twenty-seven million people in World War II, and Russians to this day are touchy about their borders. They also know who inflicted those casualties, and those who celebrate a Waffen SS division are not likely to be well thought of in the south or the east of Ukraine.
Border security is hardly ancient history for the Kremlin. As Russian expert Cohen points out, “Since the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the US-led West has been on a steady march toward post-Soviet Russia, beginning with the expansion of NATO…all the way to the Russian border.”
NATO now includes Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and former Soviet-led Warsaw Pact members Albania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment that the IMF-EU package for Ukraine would have been “a major boost for Euro-Atlantic security” suggests that NATO had set its sights on bringing Ukraine into the military alliance.
The massive demonstrations over the past three months reflected widespread outrage at the corruption of the Yanukovych regime, but they have also unleashed a dark side of Ukraine’s politics. That dark side was on display at last year’s rally in Cherkasy. Victor Smal, a lawyer and human rights activist, said he told “the men in the T-shirts they were promoting hatred. They beat me to the ground until I lost consciousness.”
Svoboda and its allies do not make up a majority of the demonstrators, but as Cohen points out, “Five percent of a population that’s tough, resolute, ruthless, armed and well funded, and knows what it wants, can make history.”
It is not the kind of history most would like to repeat.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 08:11 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
The Right Sector and Svoboda support the EU accord in the belief that it is purely an economic arrangement. Poor judgement*. They have the security ministry, but that’s all. They could do with some more sophisticated support from European comrades and some increased quality national media time.
* Svoboda also supports NATO..
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 06:13 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Tried new Disqus ID at the DT. Banned from the off! Switched on that Hotspot shield thingy and bingo, that ID was allowed to post.
So in this case the ban is purely based on IP address, not comments, followers, followed. (Ive already emailed that ID to you Morgoth) but perhaps better not to post it here.
This comment appeared in entry 'The unfolding hostility at the DT' on 03/06/14, 01:28 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Anyway, Soren, you look wHite to me.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 12:18 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
John Boehner Boasts in Interview How He’ll
Cruise to Re-Election as Speaker, Ram Amnesty Thru… and Won’t Repeal Obamacare
March 4, 2014
On immigration: Boehner wants ‘to get it done’
Boehner defended his approach to the politically dicey issue of immigration. In January, he and other GOP leaders outlined a set of principles to reform the immigration system. But shortly afterward, Boehner said he didn’t think he could move an agreement this year, arguing that Republicans didn’t trust Obama enough to implement border security measures.
On Monday, he told The Enquirer immigration was a key area of agreement between him and Obama and they talked about it at the White House last week. “He wants to get it done. I want to get it done,” he said. “But he’s going to have to help us in this process.”
He declined to say what Obama could do to win the GOP’s trust on the issue.
“I told the president I’ll leave that to him,” he said. (Thorn note: Obama will gladly pay ‘lip service” to Boehner’s concerns and no doubt Boehner will find it enough to satisfy his needs. [Oops!, was that a double entendre?])
Boehner fired back at some conservatives who have likened the GOP principles to amnesty. The GOP leadership’s outline called for granting legal status – but not citizenship – to many immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally under certain conditions. Those include admitting their immigration violation, passing background checks, paying fines and back taxes.
“Some want to call it amnesty,” Boehner said. “I reject that premise ... If you come in and plead guilty and pay a fine, that’s not amnesty.”
This comment appeared in entry 'Paul Weston on the demographics, Islam, and repatriation' on 03/06/14, 11:42 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Well, I’m rubber and you’re Jew.
(I can see Haller countenancing this MR witticism)
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 11:41 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Mick Lately wrote:
I changed my username on Disqus to something more rough-and-ready, and added a bit of crypsis, and I think I’ll escape a ban for a while, though comments on the YKWs are being deleted.
Some tempting bait on the DT right now: the immigration stuff, the threads about Kosher, and even the sports threads (was going to protest mildly at the duskification of the England football and cricket teams).
There are brainwashed “true believers” out there but a lot of people’s liberalism and anti-racism is micron thin in my experience.
Still worth doing, imho.
This comment appeared in entry 'The unfolding hostility at the DT' on 03/06/14, 10:45 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Søren Renner wrote:
“BTW, Danny, Theodore Dalrymple is a jew.”
Takes one to know one
“I know you are, but what am I?”
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 10:21 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Somebody has set up a counter site to Hope not Hate, I’ve only had the chance for a glance it but it seems very good on the money side of things, very welcome to see these shits getting a dose of their own medicine.
About a year ago I read a blog at Hope not Hate which was them weighing up the pros and cons of going all out against UKIP, they seemed to be a little nervous about the prospect. UKIP members have access to greater funds and contacts than the BNP and it could well bode very bad for them, hopefully.
‘’ Lowles has long faced a problem within Hope not Hate. Huge numbers of his own supporters were decidedly lukewarm about HnH turning its guns on UKIP, as we discussed about this time last year when he was doing a speaking tour in an attempt to drum up anti-UKIP feeling. Speaking mostly to empty chairs or hand-selected audiences of UAF and SWP activists who thought Lenin was a bit right wing and Mao was a fascist, he still lacked anything approaching a mandate to fight a battle with UKIP.
And now, out of the woodwork, crawls Hodges with his thoroughly dishonest diatribe. Hodges and Lowles are hardly unknown to each other - in the 2010 General Election campaign, HnH paid Hodges over £4,500 for a raft of services ranging from fundraising to writing press releases - the invoices are attached below. Hodges himself is a defender of Peter Mandelson, on the pages of Labour Uncut and even in the Progress Online website, while Mandelson’s group are suspected of funding Hope not Hate. And yet, as Left Futures says, “Dan Hodges is not the most reliable of soothsayers.”
No-one however has ever accused him of not knowing which side of the bread the butter is on. His latest column will inevitably raise the question about whether he is being paid by two masters for the same article: in 2010 he was already hard at work for Hope not Hate by this time of the year, although we’ll have to wait for HnH’s Electoral Commission returns later in the year to find out for sure. It’s nice work if you can get it though - being paid to promote the views of one organisation in the columns of a national newspaper which is also paying you for the same thing.
And with Hodges mother - Labour MP Glenda Jackson - standing down at the next General Election, having Peter Mandelson’s influence on your side shouldn’t hurt when the selection battle starts. It just goes to show, it’s never too early to get your nose in the trough.
So, what’s in it for Lowles? He can trumpet a national newspaper - albeit one he is hardly likely to read - labelling UKIP as racist, and flaunt the article before his dwindling band of supporters. It helps drag out the death throes of Hope not Hate - an organisation which since UKIP saw off the remnants of the BNP has no purpose - for another election campaign, and all the money that involves. The bleaker long-term reality for Lowles is that Hope not Hate is becoming an increasingly unwieldy alliance of hard left and Blairite Labour funding, with the trades unions on one side, and Mandelson’s Progress on the other. The public meetings mentioned earlier showed that HnH has no true grass roots support - this is why in 2010 it was reduced to paying private companies to carry out its leafleting as it simply no longer has the ability to put feet on the ground.
How long can he continue to pull off this balancing act? The smart money is that his organisation will be gone by the end of the year. ‘’
This comment appeared in entry 'The unfolding hostility at the DT' on 03/06/14, 10:10 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Jared, “they look wHite to me”, Talyor ...
This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is Not Innocent, it is Prejudiced, it is Hurting and it is Killing People' on 03/06/14, 08:48 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
“BTW, Danny, Theodore Dalrymple is a jew.”
Takes one to know one
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 08:47 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
In his usual exquisite style, Jared Taylor does a superb job reviewing James Kalb’s new book titled: Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It
Against Inclusiveness, by independent scholar James Kalb, is one of the most quietly subversive books to be published in many years. It is perhaps most remarkable for what it takes for granted: Of course race, nation, family, sex, erotic orientation, and religion are fundamental aspects of human identity, and of course healthy people discriminate. The “inclusivist” orthodoxy of our times, which commands us to pretend these things do not matter, is therefore inhuman and tyrannical.
This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is Not Innocent, it is Prejudiced, it is Hurting and it is Killing People' on 03/06/14, 08:00 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Given what Theodore Dalrymple has to say, it seems the EU has been reduced to a relatively feckless bystander in this situation. The two main players were and will continue to be the USA and Russia—with the USA using and exploiting the cultural and ethnic differences within Ukraine as their main destabilizing factor.
Correct me if I’m wrong but if the USA hadn’t organized and instigated the uprising against the elected government, Ukraine would be a relatively stable country? But since it has been destabilized, isn’t it a moral imperative that the Russians move in and protect the ethnic and cultural Russians from the ethnic and cultural Ukrainians? Was that just a false pretext (as the Western media is reporting) or does Putin have legitimate concerns? That said, I think it’s shrewd on Putin’s part to seize the opportunity to secure and takeover Crimea. That makes perfect strategic sense from a Russian national security standpoint.
BTW, Danny, Theodore Dalrymple is a jew.
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 07:41 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Nationalism in Europe is in a shocking bind over Ukraine. Does it support Putin and his unappealing Eurasianism on the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Does it support the brave but undoubtedly naive Pravy Sector coalition on the principle that independence is the primary virtue? Or is Pravy Sektor, whether it likes it or not, merely a pawn of the West and International Jewry, and independence for Ukraine is not a real-world possibility?
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 05:20 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Since this retarded guy named blutunboden was allowed to have the last word at Renegade, I take the matter to this court.
March 3, 2014 at 4:18 am
“ Not to mention that the Soviets would have sooner or later invaded Poland ANYHOW.”
Daniels said in response:They already had and Poland already fought them.
blutunboden: “German Invasion of Poland
1 September – 6 October 1939
Soviet Invasion of Poland
17 September – 6 October 1939
No one here is talking about the Polish-Soviet War, fucking retard.
March 3, 2014 at 3:51 pm
I am talking about it frigging retard, Poland’s will to fight the Soviets had been made clear.
March 3, 2014 at 4:05 pm
Wow, what lousy context. Retard.
That’s where Renegade would give this a-hole the last word, whereas I would have added:
Sure, blutundboden (retard), the context is “lousy” when it doesn’t suit your idealization of Hitler and the Nazis, a view of history that suited them - that bullshit is surely getting old.
This whole idiotic Pat Buchanatard view of “the unnecessary war” frames matters after the fact, where Poland’s staunch anti-Soviet position had been ignored and its sovereignty violated by Nazi Germany.
This comment appeared in entry 'Nazism As Overstated Premise of White Nationalism and False Either/Or' on 03/06/14, 03:35 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Pardon me for wondering about it Soren, or Karl, whomever might care to answer, but…
I’m wondering how Karl looks upon Russia’s history toward Belarus and Ukraine and Germany’s history with regard to Poland and Czechoslovakia?
Doesn’t this non-interventionist talk ring disingenuous? auguring perhaps a wish for a revised Molotov-Ribbentrop deal?
After all, Russia and Germany always took care of their neighbors (to the tune of millions).
Don’t get me wrong, Karl may well be the nicest person in the world, with genuine good will toward Eastern European peoples and their borders. I don’t know anything about the man or his organization. But from the perspective of Eastern Europe, the call for NATO’s removal, its being cited as the only potential hazard while Germany and Russia are recommended as ever benign neighbors is a little suspicious.
I mean, just to show what can happen to White Nationalism from that perspective: People in the west still do not recognize that Belarusians are a distinct nation, people, culture and language from Russia; that the very name “Belarus” is an imposed Russification on a different nation of people; whose voice as such has been quelled by the millions by their good non-Nato neighbors.
Good article regarding Ukraine by Theodore Dalrymple at Tak’s Magazine:
This comment appeared in entry '+ + + PRESS RELEASE + + +' on 03/06/14, 12:07 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Graham, thanks for the recommendation… I’m watching The Tree of Life.. it really is something.
This comment appeared in entry 'Empire of the End' on 03/05/14, 12:19 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Nobody (Repeat: NOBODY!) takes anything you have to say as serious thought.
Hasn’t it occurred to you yet?
The best we can do is make his stay uncomfertable.”
As if Thornblossom has not been trying to do that for over a year now.
He doesn’t have a prefigured agenda or anything?
One which would have him imperviously talking over whatever I might say?
The central questions are
1. Why don’t he and his tag-team partner, Haller, go to a Christian site?
2. Who put them up to this harassment and derailing of threads meaningful to White Nationalists?
On the positive side, they make it clear that our enemies
1. Want to impose Christianity on Whites as a fallback diversion (obviously because it would make our people hapless, illogical and gullible idiots)
2. React with hysteria when something is threatening to them. That is, you should look carefully at what has them reacting as such, what is it that they want to discredit? What do they not want you to see? When things are written that they don’t want people to see, why are they nearly hysterical in their wish to destroy the messenger with ad hominem; to divert and drown that message with cut and paste boiler plate?
Like the hysterical Jewish female spirit that infests them, they will hysterically hang-on, clinging tooth and nail, rather than let us talk about what we might talk about, elaborate on careful premises in our interests.
Thorn and Haller do not even have the decency and common courtesy to go to one of the many sites where the stuff they profess to care about would be in agreement with the editorial calibration.
This comment appeared in entry 'Yes, The White Race IS ..A Social Construct (Contrary To Jewish And Right-Wing Denial)' on 03/05/14, 11:07 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Among several reasons why this main post’s characterization of “anti-racism” can be preferable is that it does not invoke clear subjective concern which might be readily dismissed as such.
This “sonnet” on counter currents recapitulates the mantra..
...and it will be found that in some contexts that “just a code word for anti White” works.. in other situations it will be awkward at best.
This comment appeared in entry 'Anti-Racism is Not Innocent, it is Prejudiced, it is Hurting and it is Killing People' on 03/05/14, 09:45 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
USSA Government Goes Stark Raving Mad – Kerry, An ‘Ignorant Buffoon, Moron’ And ‘Witless Dolt’
By Susan Duclos
Event Horizon Chronicle has put out perhaps the best take down ever of the Obama administration’s response, via John Kerry, to Russia’s actions in the Crimea region of the Ukraine.
Kerry’s idiocy in the statement below is what prompts the scathing reply from Event Horizon Chronicle, which is read and shown, in full in the video below the quoted excerpt:
You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text, It is serious in terms of sort of the modern manner with which nations are going to resolve problems. There are all kinds of other options still available to Russia. There still are. President Obama wants to emphasize to the Russians that there are a right set of choices that can still be made to address any concerns they have about Crimea, about their citizens, but you don’t choose to invade a country in order to do that.
The response by Event Horizon Chronicle includes asking if Kerry is a “naif”, calling him an “ignorant buffoon,” and a whole lot more in a short post, and concludes with the following:
I am ashamed to have a passport from the so-called “nation” that sends such an embarrassing moron out in front of the whole world to publicly parade his stupidity and ignorance.
How long can such insanity continue? How long can the situation continue to deteriorate before red-white-and-blue ignoramuses like John Kerry create a crisis that destroys us all?
It would be comical if it were not that his near total arrogance and ignorance impact the lives of hundreds of millions, even billions of people on this planet, because of the powerful position he holds.
I repeat…. BEST. TAKE DOWN. EVER.
This comment appeared in entry 'Pravy Sektor, from out of Ukraine ...' on 03/05/14, 08:37 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
I visited the playwright David Greig at the Tron Theatre in Glasgow, where he is working on a kind of traveling salon, the Imagine Scotland café, touring the country to stage town hall meetings on independence—with not a politician present. He plans to vote yes, but not for the old nationalist reasons:
To me, “nationalism” refers to a nineteenth-century nation-state with hard borders, an army, two houses of parliament, and a big fortress in the center of the capital city. In the 1930s we may have imagined that’s what Scottish independence would mean. The Scotland we’re willing to be born is a new kind of country, not that nineteenth-century kind of state.
Greig hopes Scotland will become a model for Catalonia and others, a state that embraces the pooling of sovereignty, as committed to interdependence as to independence.
This has defenders of the union scratching their heads. Why separate only to join together straight afterward? Besides, the United Kingdom has always been a pretty loose arrangement, especially for the Scots. Through the three centuries of union, Scotland has retained a separate legal system, separate education system, and separate churches—both Protestant and Catholic. Scotland fields its own national soccer team. Only at the Olympic Games is it subsumed into Great Britain. Given that since 1999 Scotland has had political autonomy to match that distinct legal, cultural, and sporting identity, why go to the bother of breaking away from a union that has achieved so much, especially if that break will be far from complete?
The answer is less constitutional than political, even ideological. The clue comes in the second sentence of Alex Salmond’s preface to Scotland’s Future. “Our national story has been shaped down the generations by values of compassion, equality, an unrivalled commitment to the empowerment of education,” he writes. It is on this ground—“compassion, equality”—that the Nationalists argue for what they believe is the Scottish difference. No one suggests it is a genetic or racial characteristic of the Scots, but rather that Scotland has developed a different political culture—different, that is, from the rest of the UK and specifically England.
For the Nationalists, Scotland has become a land of social democratic consensus, one that believes it has more in common with the high-tax, high-spend northern neighbors of Scandinavia than it does with the turbo-capitalism of the City of London. “There is a strong sense that the UK is evolving towards the US model, where you can never give enough to the top one percent,” Blair Jenkins, formerly of the BBC and now chief executive of the Yes campaign, told me when we met at the Yes headquarters in Glasgow. “A more collective sense of society, of looking out for one another, is a strong part of Scottish life.” Surrounding him as we talk is the usual campaign merchandise, mugs, hats, T-shirts—and a poster declaring “Tak,” Polish for yes.
The No campaign dismisses such talk as essentialism, an upscale cousin of the Scottish chauvinism of the past. “The idea that people who live in the south of England are less high-minded than us, almost inferior to us—it’s the height of arrogance,” Darling told me. Nevertheless, the notion that a different political landscape has developed in Scotland is hard to dispute.
For one thing, the Conservative Party—the senior partner in the coalition that rules the UK—has all but vanished as a political force in Scotland. In the 1955 election, the Tories won more votes in Scotland than any other party, but decades of decline followed, culminating in the wipeout of 1997 from which they have never recovered. Even now, of the fifty-nine members of Parliament Scotland sends to Westminster, just one is a Conservative.
The two-word explanation is Margaret Thatcher. Her program of privatization of state industries and her battles with the trade unions antagonized the strongly laborist tradition of Scotland, but she grated on middle-class Scots too. She conveyed both a tin ear and callous disregard for the country, famously testing the widely loathed “poll tax” out on the Scots a year before imposing it in the rest of the kingdom. Ever since, to be a Tory north of the border is to carry a toxic brand.
Today’s Scottish Tories have done their best to reinvent themselves—their current leader, Ruth Davidson, is just thirty-five and the first open lesbian to head a UK political party—but still they make no dent. The result is that the British prime minister, David Cameron, dares not play too visible a role in a campaign that could change the shape of the state he governs: he knows that were he to turn up in Edinburgh and challenge Salmond, the Eton-educated southern aristocrat lecturing the Scots, the Yes camp would gain votes by the crateload. Tellingly, when Cameron did make an intervention in the independence debate—telling Scots in early February “We want you to stay”—he did so in a speech delivered in London.
But this goes deeper than the absence of a functioning party of the right. Scotland has only a few private schools. Its National Health Service remains a monolith in state hands, while in England the involvement of private companies in the provision of medical treatment has long been underway. (The last major private hospital to be built in Scotland was nationalized in 2004.) Euroskeptic and anti-immigration sentiments register in Scottish polls in similar numbers to those recorded down south, but they find no political outlet or traction in Scotland. While the UK government first imposed and then increased tuition fees for college, in Scotland a university education remains free for the student, funded wholly by the state. Prescription drugs are also free in Scotland, as is personal care for the elderly.
The contrast is with a UK politics increasingly dominated by London and the southeast of England—whose marginal seats, swing districts in US parlance, can have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of nationwide elections. According to the political commentator Iain Macwhirter, “In the last 30 years, London and the southeast has carved itself off from the rest of Britain and devised a post-industrial economy based on financial services and neoliberal tax policies.” Those in turn have fed a widening inequality that appalls many Scots but that, they suspect, England tolerates.
That reference to “30 years” is significant. Some in Scotland may well have assumed the drift rightward would end with Blair’s landslide victory in 1997. But in these matters—privatization and inequality—the trend continued uninterrupted. Labour added further to Scotland’s alienation with Blair’s support of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a move deeply unpopular among Scots. Many in Scotland drew a glum conclusion: if even a strong Labour government in Westminster—one headed by two Scottish-born prime ministers, first Blair and then Gordon Brown—does not make a difference, then maybe we really do need to go it alone.
Viewed like this, it is, paradoxically, Scotland that has been clinging to an idea of Britain, one that has been abandoned by the rest of the UK—at least if that idea is defined in part as the collectivist spirit of 1945. As Macwhirter writes, “Scots have arguably been more committed to the idea of Britain than the English over the last 200 years. What Scotland didn’t buy into was the abandonment of what used to be called the post-war consensus: universalism and the welfare state.”
Which is why the Yes campaign’s offer, set out in Scotland’s Future, consists as much of social policy as constitutional change. The document contains few abstractions about democracy, but promises instead “a transformational change in childcare,” the scrapping of London-imposed changes to welfare benefits, and, in the move most likely to attract international attention, the removal of the UK’s Trident nuclear weapon system from Scotland. “We’re half an hour away from the biggest collection of weapons of mass destruction in western Europe,” Jenkins told me. “There’s no version of devolution that allows us to get rid of that.” In other words, only independence allows Scotland to fully realize the distinct political culture that has arisen there.
Some on the left of the No campaign warn that it will be a cruel irony if, by breaking away, Scotland ensures the isolation of its more social democratic ethos. For once Scotland no longer sends fifty-nine MPs to Westminster, many of whom represent safe Labour seats, then Labour’s chances of forming a UK government diminish sharply. If independence happens in 2016, then an England-dominated UK could be the land that is forever Tory. Some electoral analysts dispute that arithmetic; nevertheless it will be this country to which an independent, left-leaning Scotland might be bound in monetary, fiscal, and political union, with the UK Treasury and Bank of England together making major decisions affecting Scotland’s economy. Scottish social democracy could discover it was able to flourish more easily inside Britain than out.
It will be a greater irony still if the ultimate consequence of the program pursued by the great patriot and would-be latter-day Britannia, Margaret Thatcher, was to be the unraveling of the United Kingdom. Yet her shredding of the 1945 settlement may well be seen as a principal cause. I talked to the journalist Allan Little, who is covering the referendum campaign for the BBC. “When I grew up in Galloway,” he told me,
it was the days of British Coal and British Steel. The British state probably built your home, warmed your front room and put in your phone. It rolled the steel, it employed everyone around. Now all that’s gone. Communities like that were the bedrock of British identity in Scotland and now, like the empire, they’re fading into the middle distance of the collective memory.
The British state is a smaller presence in Scottish lives now. Perhaps it was no coincidence that Thatcher’s program was known as denationalization.
Until recently these questions have barely pressed in on Britain outside Scotland. The media and political classes in London have been lethargic, mainly because polls throughout 2013 showed the cause of independence likely to be soundly defeated. But that complacency might be ill-judged. An ICM survey at the end of January showed the gap between the two sides down to just eight points, with No leading Yes by 54 percent to 46 percent.
What’s more, the pro-independence side has some serious advantages. Salmond has a claim to being the most gifted politician in Britain, let alone Scotland: a former oil economist, he is a wily strategist and an outstanding platform speaker with charisma to spare. He is backed by an able deputy, Nicola Sturgeon. Darling is solid, trusted, and with great experience—but no one would accuse him of runaway charisma. He made his reputation putting out fires rather than igniting them. His problem is that while the SNP can call on its A-team, Scottish Labour’s biggest talents, Darling included, made their careers by leaving for London long ago.
Accordingly, the SNP has the sharpest, most effective political machine in Scotland, with campaign teams in every corner of the country. Pro-independence meetings are going on somewhere every night of the week, while as The Spectator has observed, “Alistair Darling’s ‘Better Together’ campaign seems quieter than a Stornoway playground on the Sabbath.”
That lead in the ground game reflects an enthusiasm gap. “‘I’m passionately committed to the status quo’ is not an obvious rallying cry,” observes the investment fund manager and philanthropist Alan Macfarlane, a donor to Better Together. It is obviously self-serving for Salmond to declare, as he does in his foreword to The Road to Independence?, that “the momentum and direction of the people of Scotland is unmistakable.” Nevertheless, it is striking that most of Scotland’s artists, writers, and musicians are either Yes voters or leaning that way. The same is true of the young, which is relevant since the franchise for September 18 has been expanded to include those over the age of sixteen. “It’s just not very cool to be No,” says Greig.
It’s tempting to describe this as a battle of head versus heart, with the Yes campaign promising romance and pride against the pedantic legalism of No. But plenty on the Yes side see it as the other way around, with the rational arguments weighing in their favor while No tries to tug at the enduring sentiments of Britishness. Meanwhile, both sides accuse the other of intimidation, claiming that both the London and Edinburgh governments are hinting darkly to recipients of their largesse that their public statements had better be helpful—or else.
The sheer length of the campaign, which began when Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were duking it out in Iowa, is thought to help the Yes side. The more a once-outlandish idea like independence is talked about, the more normal it becomes. But the No side clings to the precedent of referendums past: as polling day looms, support for the status quo tends to rise.
Privately, well-placed Nationalists reckon a narrow defeat is probable—and they insist that will be no disaster. If the Yes side gets more than 40 percent then, they say, a new process will begin—negotiations with London over greater powers for Edinburgh, for the enhanced devolution known as “devo max,” which most believe would have comfortably gained 70 percent support had it been on the ballot. Scots themselves might groan at that prospect, bracing themselves for the “neverendum” endured by the people of Quebec.
Yet such a negotiation would not be a Scots-only affair. What has begun in Scotland is a rebellion against the highly centralized Westminster state, which still hands Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the English regions a “block grant” of cash rather than letting them raise and spend their own funds as they see fit. David Greig argues that this “nineteenth century system of imperial governance is at the end of its natural life. We’re just the first to say it.” Whatever happens on September 18, they are unlikely to be the last.
—February 20, 2014
This comment appeared in entry 'Gay drama.' on 03/05/14, 06:41 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
For Graham Lister: WILL SCOTLAND WIN ITS FREEDOM??!
Will Scotland Go Independent? Jonathan Freedland
Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland
by the Scottish Government
649 pp., available at scotreferendum.com
The Road to Independence?: Scotland in the Balance
by Murray Pittock, with a foreword by Alex Salmond
Reaktion/University of Chicago Press, revised and expanded second edition, 261 pp., $28.00
On September 18, Scots will be asked to say yes or no to the following question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” It is a beguilingly simple query, a model of clarity compared to, say, the 106-word essay put to the people of Quebec in a 1980 referendum that asked if they wished to break away from Canada, phrased in so convoluted a manner that many barely understood the question.
Much will hang on the Scots’ answer. Other states have recently broken up—the former Yugoslavia through war and Czechoslovakia by amicable divorce—but for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom would mark the dissolution of a state that has endured for more than three centuries, that is one of the world’s oldest democracies, and whose imperial rule once covered a quarter of the planet’s surface. At a stroke, the land of Shakespeare and Burns, Locke and Hume would lose nearly 10 percent of its people—there are 5.3 million Scots in a UK population of 63 million—and one third of its landmass. At stake is the future of Scotland and Britain, both uncertain how they would fare in the event of a yes vote, the former going it alone, the latter reduced to its three remaining constituent parts: England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But something else could be decided too, namely the changing shape and meaning of nationhood in the twenty-first century.
It’s worth noting what the referendum campaign is not. It is not a blood-and-soil clash over identity and ethnicity. The Braveheart notion of Scottish nationalism—spear-carriers, faces painted in woad, crying freedom against the English oppressor—has been extinct, even as myth, for several decades. These days you will see few kilts at the annual conference of the Scottish National Party (SNP), whose landslide victory in 2011 gave it an overall majority in the Scottish parliament and, with it, the power to call a referendum on the idea that forms the party’s historic mission: independence.
Today’s SNP is avowedly of the civic nationalist variety, its focus on questions of democracy and governance. The “Nats” boast of their inclusiveness to ethnic minorities (there is a group called Scots Asians for Independence), are keen to see more, not less, immigration, and are in no hurry to be identified with their onetime sister parties in Europe, those assorted separatists and nationalists whom the SNP would now regard as insular if not xenophobic.
The difference lies chiefly in the history. The union of the Scottish and English crowns came in 1603 and could fairly be described as the initiative of a Scot, King James. The British Empire was a joint venture of the two nations, serving together as, if not exactly equals, then at least partners. Recall that the first British colonies of the New World were Jamestown, named for the Scottish monarch, and Virginia, established to honor the Virgin Queen of England. Scots were willing and enthusiastic imperialists, enlisting in disproportionate numbers to fight Britannia’s enemies and filling high posts in the East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, and the like.
As a result of that experience of empire, and of fighting two world wars alongside each other, the two nations have long been intertwined. Beyond the formal Act of Union that paired them in 1707, the leader of the SNP and Scotland’s first minister, Alec Salmond, speaks of the “social union” that connects Scots and the English, the countless ties that come with friends, family, and careers that span the border. Thanks to the usual tides of marriage and the search for work, some 800,000 Scots now live in other parts of the UK, while 400,000 people from elsewhere in Britain—most of them English—live in Scotland. (The first group, incidentally, will have no vote in the referendum while those in the later category will.)
Accordingly, today’s demand for independence presents itself as shorn of even the faintest hint of anti-Englishness, once an all-too-common feature of the nationalist landscape. (A long-ago leader of the SNP, Arthur Donaldson, loathed the English sufficiently to see a potential Nazi victory as an opportunity for Scottish nationalism, a view that brought him a six-week spell in Barlinnie jail in 1940—though he was, at least, allowed to wear his kilt.) The tension is historic now, fit chiefly for commemoration as it will be again in this summer’s celebrations of the seven-hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, when Robert the Bruce led the Scots to victory over King Edward II of England, which the referendum, whose date was chosen by Salmond, is rather conveniently timed to follow. Attacks on English residents of Scotland for being English still happen, but they are rare and declined by 17 percent in 2011–2012. The friction between Scots and English lives on now chiefly in the former’s self-deprecating loathing of the latter’s national soccer team, which hasn’t won a major tournament since its never-forgotten triumph in the World Cup of 1966. An ad campaign for a distinctly Scottish soda captures the sentiment well: “I had an Irn-Bru in ’66, but I don’t go on about it.”
The reality of the social union and the gentleness of the relationship mean the usual traits of secessionist campaigns are missing. The case for Yes is presented in mild, technocratic terms. Its core argument is that the Scottish parliament that the SNP now dominates—created in 1999 as part of Tony Blair’s program of “devolution,” in which areas of the UK previously governed from Westminster were given varying degrees of autonomy over their own affairs—lacks sufficient powers to govern Scotland properly. In his foreword to an updated edition of The Road to Independence? by Murray Pittock, a solidly nationalist account of Scottish politics since 1945, Salmond speaks of the “democratic deficit” that still afflicts the country. “A simple glance at how policies affecting Scotland are imposed against the will of this nation’s elected representatives shows how deeply that democratic deficit still runs,” he writes.
The key text, however, is Scotland’s Future, the white paper issued by the SNP government that over 649 pages spells out the mechanics of independence. It is short on the rhetoric of self-determination, long on the quotidian details of self-government. In a “Q & A” section, the third question—after “Why should Scotland be independent?” and “Can Scotland afford to be independent?”—is “What will happen to my pension?” There are few rousing calls to Scottish pride or the spirit of Bannockburn, their place taken by information on postal services and the administration of drivers’ licenses.
The answers Scotland’s Future supplies reflect the core goal of the Yes campaign, widely referred to by skeptics as “project reassurance.” The pro-independence campaign knows that Scots value much about their relationship with the rest of Britain and therefore seeks to soothe them that even if they vote yes, they will be able to keep everything they like, jettisoning only that which palls. So—in statements, several of which were immediately challenged—the document tells them that the Queen will remain head of state, the pound will remain the currency, Scotland will still be in Nato and the European Union, and Scots will still call be able to call on the National Health Service. They won’t lose their access to much-loved BBC radio and TV shows. Lest there be any doubt, the white paper says, “Current programming like EastEnders, Doctor Who, and Strictly Come Dancing…will still be available in Scotland.” These are the institutions that, for many, define Britain and Britishness—monarchy, the pound, the NHS, the BBC—and the Yes campaign tells Scots that they can keep the lot.
The opposition mocks this as doubletalk, the nationalists promising Scots a dual approach to cake, one in which Scots can both have it and eat it. “Everything will change and nothing will change,” says Alistair Darling, leader of the No campaign that unites the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labour parties and calls itself Better Together. Darling was chancellor of the exchequer in the last Labour government of the UK, but has now been drafted back to Edinburgh—home of his parliamentary district—charged with no less a task than saving the union.
The Nats retort that Darling leads “Project Fear,” a phrase that, damagingly, was reported to be in use in the headquarters of the No campaign itself. Nationalists say, with some justification, that the No argument boils down to, as Scots might put it, “Ye cannae do i’.” So a long-running spat centers on Salmond’s insistence that a newly independent Scotland would effortlessly take its place as the twenty-ninth member state in the European Union. Not so, says Darling: the other twenty-eight would have to agree and there’s every reason to suspect that at least some would say no. (Spain is the obvious potential naysayer, reluctant to set a precedent that would be seized upon by separatists in Catalonia, which aims to have a plebiscite of its own in November.) The No camp gained a star witness in mid-February when the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said it would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to join the EU.
Alistair Darling can offer a dozen examples in a similar vein, all aimed at questioning the viability of a stand-alone Scotland. Edinburgh’s large financial sector won’t want to remain in a country foreign to the 80 percent of its customers who live in England: it will migrate south on September 19. Don’t assume, warns Darling, that the remaining UK will keep paying for its naval vessels to be built in Glasgow’s Clydeside shipyard: if Scotland says yes, the UK will say no. Meanwhile, from London, the UK government issues repeated alarms in a similar register. One official paper cautions that a new Scottish state will no longer be privy to the intelligence secrets seen today. Referring to the “Five-Eyes” intelligence-sharing arrangement that links the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, the document insists that “There would be no automatic right of entry to the ‘Five-Eyes’ community for an independent Scottish state,” adding tersely, “Entry is by invitation only.” It’s not only international isolation and economic ruin that loom. In February, a UK government minister warned that if Scots break away, the cost of a postage stamp will go up.
At the end of January these two projects, fear and reassurance, clashed in revealing fashion on the turf that matters most: money. The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney—who is Canadian—made a rare journey to Edinburgh to deliver a speech on the plan outlined in the SNP’s white paper Scotland’s Future, in which an independent Scotland would keep the pound sterling as its currency. In the language of neutrality demanded of a central banker, Carney nevertheless explained that things weren’t that simple. The lesson of the eurozone crisis was that sharing a currency was fraught with risk. It could only work if the parties were bound together in a monetary and banking union. The governor’s most-quoted line was: “In short, a durable, successful currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty.”
For the No campaign, that was the cue to say that the rest of the UK would never agree to a plan that required English, Welsh, and Northern Irish taxpayers to bail out Scottish banks if they failed (not a wholly hypothetical possibility, given the central part played by the Royal Bank of Scotland in the 2008 financial crisis). The point was underlined in mid-February when the chief financial spokesmen for the three main UK parties closed ranks to deliver the collective message that, “If Scotland walks away from the UK, it walks away from the UK pound,” as the current chancellor, the Conservative George Osborne, put it. Even if somehow Scotland’s neighbors could be persuaded to become partners once again, then a nominally independent Scotland would rapidly find itself bound into a new version of the very fiscal and political union with Britain it had just worked so hard to escape. This, then, was the No message in microcosm: you can’t do it and even if you could, it wouldn’t be worth it.
Yet the Nationalists strove to interpret Carney’s words as reassuring. The day after independence, they suggested, negotiations would begin to construct fiscal arrangements that would be comfortingly familiar. On the most sensitive of all questions, the economy, a message of continuity was, from the SNP’s perspective, no disaster.
To outsiders, this can be among the hardest aspects of the independence debate to grasp. The London media certainly took the No campaign’s view of Carney’s intervention, reading his declaration that the new Scotland would have to cede some national sovereignty as a mortal blow to the independence cause. But that might be to misread the kind of nationalism that has arisen in Scotland.
This comment appeared in entry 'Gay drama.' on 03/05/14, 06:40 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
Ahhhh, what have I been saying re American Christians:
POLL FINDS EVANGELICALS OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSE KEY COMPONENTS OF OBAMA’S AND BOEHNER’S IMMIGRATION PROPOSALS
Click here to view the analysis and comments on the poll, and to get the link to view the full poll results:
The poll found that most evangelicals oppose Obama’s and Boehner’s plans (1) to give out lifetime work permits to nearly all illegal aliens, (2) to give out any work permits before all new enforcement is fully implemented, and (3) to greatly increase the flow of legal foreign workers.
The moral priorities for evangelical lobbyists are to help illegal immigrants and business organizations..
On the other hand, most evangelicals put top moral priority on helping unemployed and low-wage Americans, the polling found.
The evangelical lobbyists are operating with money from an organization that gets major funding from leftist George Soros and the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been guiding the lobbying strategy for several years now.
When it comes to illegal immigration, the poll found that three of every four evangelical voters believe that biblical teaching about treatment of foreigners is more of a command to apply the law humanely to illegal immigrants than to give them work permits as is being advocated by both Pres. Obama and House Speaker Boehner.
The Pulse Opinion Research survey of 1,000 evangelical likely voters found that, when considering the country’s unemployed, the overwhelming majority of evangelicals favored fully enforcing immigration laws and reducing legal immigration by at least half. (The 19-question survey’s margin of error was 3%.)
Only 12% of evangelical voters agreed with the view that the Old Testament verses in which “God commands the ancient Israelites to love the stranger as themselves” mean that “the U.S. government should offer work permits and legal status to illegal immigrants.”
Instead, 78% chose the interpretation that God’s command “means the U.S. government should offer humane treatment while fairly applying the law.”
The survey asked evangelicals if restrictive immigration laws violate or follow biblical teachings?
By a 5-1 margin, evangelicals said the laws “follow biblical teaching by protecting the most vulnerable within the national community,” as opposed to the view that the laws “violate biblical teaching by keeping out poor foreigners seeking a better life.”
By a 4-1 margin, evangelicals were more likely to say the government has “a lot” of moral responsibility to protect struggling Americans from having to “compete with foreign workers for jobs” than to say the responsibility is to protect the ability of “settled illegal immigrants to hold a job and support their families without fear of deportation.”
Only 18% of evangelical voters were persuaded by arguments that the presence of so many illegal immigrants as active members of their churches improves the case for granting work permits and legal status. It should make no difference, said 71%.
29% WANT ZERO IMMIGRATION . . .
HALF WANT NO MORE THAN 100,000
The poll found even less support for increasing legal immigration:
only 8% of evangelicals supported doubling legal immigration and 14% favored keeping it at the current 1 million a year,
64% said immigration should be cut at least to 500,000 a year, with half of all evangelicals supporting a limit of no more than 100,000 a year,
29% said legal immigration should be reduced to zero.
Evangelicals showed particular concerns for Black and Hispanic Americans, younger less-educated Americans of all ethnicities and the disabled, all of whom have very high jobless rates and whom many employers say they find it difficult to recruit. Most evangelicals (73%) said that, instead of bringing in more immigrant workers, employers should be “required to try harder to recruit and train” Americans from those high-unemployment groups.
And most evangelicals (68%) said they are willing to pay higher prices if it is necessary for employers to raise wages to fill jobs with Americans instead of adding more foreign workers. Asked to choose between two overall views of immigration:
15% chose that “most people should be able to migrate from country to country since all people are equal children of God.”
75% chose that “nations have a moral and sovereign right to decide which and how many immigrants can enter.”
Half the respondents of the poll were Republicans, 25% were Democrats and 25% were Independents. The margin of sampling error was 3% with a 95% level of confidence.
This comment appeared in entry 'Savage future – Part 1' on 03/05/14, 06:21 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Page 1 of 3474 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›