|
|
|
After June 23rd  My record on political soothsaying is by no means perfect. But tonight, for the first time since the Tory triumph in the General Election last May, I am starting to feel optimistic for a Leave triumph in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, which we now know will take place on June 23rd. The arguments for Remain have already been rehearsed and written off as Project Fear. They will not grow stronger with repetition. All the positive noises, all the energy and excitement, the populism, the passion, the patriotism belong to Leave. I have been amazed to see the freedom and frankness with which even hitherto rigidly loyal journalists at the Telegraph and the Mail have, almost without exception, derided Cameron’s so-called “deal” with the other 27 member states and declared for Leave. It is said that up to half of the Tory parliamentary party will campaign for Leave, an unknown number of them mindful only that victory for this great cause will very likely remove Cameron from office and put Boris Johnson in his place. But that is but a small detail of the huge change - a genuine metapolitical shift - which will be triggered by a Leave victory. Let us just consider that for a moment. The European Union is a project for the elites. It is one of the principal engines of globalism, and it is immensely ambitious as such. It offers a vision of an eventual multiracial, non-democratic unitary state concerned to expand to the eastern and southern borders of Russia, into Turkey and the Levant, North Africa (via the Barcelona Process), and, in time, across the Sahara and into the rest of the African continent. All this is a matter of record. But none of it would be remotely open to consideration were it not for the four grand, overlapping developments in the politics of the West in the late 20th century: the triumph of Capital over the command economy; that of political internationalism over nationalism; that of elitism over democracy; that of business and banking over peoples and populism. These four triumphs winnowed national politics in the West, leaving us with the machine politician, the career politician; and his economically neoliberal and socially neo-Marxist, identikit parties; and ushered in an era of corruption, cynicism and betrayal. Not unnaturally, this model of power politics has come under attack in every one of the European democracies. In the UK, although nationalism has failed to lay a glove on it, euroscepticism has not. True, UKIP could not break through with Westminster seats last May. But David Cameron was forced to write into his party’s election manifesto a promise that, if successful, a Conservative government would hold a simple in-out referendum on EU membership by the end of next year. At the time of the election the polls were very tight, and doubtless Cameron expected, at best, to be back in Downing Street with support from the Liberal Democrats. They, of course, would never sanction any kind of challenge to their beloved project in nation destroying. In the event the LibDems collapsed, Labour failed miserably, and Cameron won a most unexpected majority. But ... he was now lumbered with that manifesto promise. Plainly, he and his advisers thought they would have little difficulty in repeating the success of Project Fear in the Scottish IndyRef. After all, who would remember Cameron’s Bloomberg speech, in which he had talked of a deep reform of the institutions of the European Union and of the UK’s relationship with it. Nobody. They’ll all just vote for the status quo ... for what they know, won’t they? Simple. But now it’s starting to look like change is coming on 23rd June. The return to independence of the UK will deliver a mighty blow to the process of ever greater union, energising dissent throughout the Union; ramping up costs for the other contributor member states, of which I believe only five or six will be left; and showing once again that the people do not want what the elites want, but still love and value their nation states and long to preserve them as independent and whole, functioning entities. With Schengen almost dead now, the euro in permanent crisis, the European economies seemingly permanently enfeebled, and the second largest economy negotiating its departure from the Union for good, the credibility of an EU elite which insists that the project must be advanced with ever more speed and determination will be tested and will be found wanting. The Union could already be fatally wounded. It might take years to die or it might happen with the dispatch that attended the collapse of communism in the east in 1989. For nationalists this is a highly significant moment. The pendulum has surely begun its long, stately swing back towards our politics. We are in no way ready for what will come. Comments:2
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 03:39 | # From my perspective this is all a complete disaster in the making, of a kind that will have far-reaching ramifications and probably will impact my purse directly in some measurable way. However, I would not be angry with the British people if they chose to throw in the towel and give up on the European Union Project now. I am angry with the political class, the journalists, and the think tanks which all went along with pushing “refugees welcome” as a policy preference. Those people have made the choices that have led to this upcoming referendum being treated as a referendum on “refugees welcome”. The events across Europe that have happened since this stupid process of accepting everything into continental Europe began, are indeed a real threat which has not been dealt with sufficiently, and it’s not surprising that over 50% of the British public might want to get as far away from that situation as they can possibly get. This is accentuated by the fact that even now the German CDU party leaders are still hectoring the UK over the fact that it ‘has not accepted enough refugees’. Enough is enough, and I’m sure that many Britons are feeling that right now. The EU was a great project with great potential, possibly one of greatest and most optimistic projects that has ever been devised in Europe, but they completely ruined it, turning it into a joke and a farce. The political class have totally ruined it, and they’ve made Europe look foolish on the world stage. The whole phrase ‘the European Union’ has now become some kind of joke everywhere. It didn’t have to be that way, but they made it that way. There are considerable benefits that the UK gets from being part of the EU, not least because the UK is the strongest military power in Europe with a vibrant defence sector which would be able to decide through the EP on how best to spend defence budgets (awarding itself deals of course). Other benefits include access to the trade area without having to deal with the Common External Tariff. For example, if you are a manufacturer from outside of Europe and you want to manufacture in Europe, the UK can be an attractive option because you get the best of both worlds, the Anglo-Saxon approach to economics, but full access to the continent. But all of that is outweighed now by the absolutely ridiculous costs that “refugees welcome” is now going to be imposing on Europe. The list: 1. EU terrorist threats: The fact that Europol was unable to prevent the Paris Attacks of 2015 is something that is unfortunate for Europol, but the political class has created a situation in which it would have been next to impossible for anyone to find those attackers in time. This will continue, and there are costs to having to be on alert for attacks all the time. I don’t know what the calculations for this are, but it’s a big number. 2. EU gender imbalance: Most of the migrants are male, and will tilt the gender balance of European countries toward more violent and crime ridden societies. The cost of law enforcement for all those problems caused by inviting a stream of young males into Europe will also be high, and I don’t know what the figures for this would be either. 3. Treasuries cannot sustain EU plans: To adequately begin to manage the ridiculous and insane “refugees welcome” plan that they seem determined to go ahead with, they would need to spend something like USD $180 billion over just the next three years, if you assume that the ‘number of expected migrants’ is always less than a third of the amount that actually show up, and that operational inefficiencies will drive the costs up further. Germany itself has only a USD $6.8 billion budget surplus as we speak, and most of the other European states have budget deficits. This means that there is literally no money available to do this with, unless someone would like to just start expanding the money supply with loans borrowed against European children’s future labour? 4. Incentivises EU abuse of credit lines: Since Germany used austerity to effectively starve Europeans for so many years, I’m sure that Germany’s political class will next be presenting the ‘good news’ that everyone has pretty nice credit scores as a result of that budget starvation, and that ‘now is the time’ to wreck those very credit scores by taking out massive loans and giving the money to the migrants. Credit is ‘bad’ when used to spend on yourself, but ‘historic’ when used to bail out migrants from a culture hostile to your own. Apparently! 5. Loans to EU states will not be paid back: When the ‘integration’ of the migrants fails to produce any long term economic gains for Europe, and I say ‘when it fails’ because it’s just obvious that it will fail, then everyone will start wringing their hands and saying that the state cannot keep spending like a drunken sailor. Jobs will be cut, businesses that bet on migrant labour will go bankrupt, pensions will be cut, and social services will be cut. And loans will not be paid back, or will be diluted in value by Quantitative Easing yet again. It’s clear that this is a choice between two different fail-modes. Both ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’, harm my interests in some way, but it is abundantly clear that unless something dramatically changes by June, ‘Remain’ is now the most harmful in aggregate of the two choices. Assuming that nothing about this insane situation changes by June, I will vote ‘Leave’ on the referendum when it is placed in front of me. I would have no other choice. The UK is going to need all the policy agility it can get in the coming period if it wants to emerge from this crisis in an advantageous position, and so I’ll stand with the British people on that. And that’s something I thought I’d never say or do. There is no joy in that for me, but the situation dictates the response. The situation is a gigantic sucking money sink and my response to that sucking sound is, “I’m out”. Hopefully more than 50% of voters will feel the same way when it comes right down to it. 3
Posted by Sören on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:09 | # I am replying to Kumiko. I hear your fears and that’s natural, but accusing migrants in these points is lazy solution, they are not numerous enough to have all that impact on European economy. 1. Interpol/Europol also failed to stop the second worst terrorist attack in Europe (of last 10 years) in Norway, after Breivik had been travelling around Europe buying guns and fertilizer, to achieve the level of security people seem to wish for, absolutely everyone should be deported, including natives. 2. I think that’s dehumanising and ridiculous point of view, because you treat people as cattle, but I will still answer to it. Most migrants are male, but most European societies have bigger female populations than male populations. Now what you are saying is offensive because comparing individually different countries does not correlate with your claims. Russia is strongly women-dominated society, but has lots of crime, whereas China has lots more men than women and has little crime. I am a “young male” and let me tell you, I am not letting you tell me I am more prone to crime because of my sex and age. 3. That’s why its important to let migrants start working as fast as possible. All statistics show migrants contribute more to social security than they take out benefits, but if we force them to sit around do nothing in refugee homes, of course it is expensive. (http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2014/08/06/sept-idees-recues-sur-l-immigration-et-les-immigres_4467506_4355770.html The only part of French social security that is not in deficit is the fund for migrants’ welfare) 4. What? You lost me there. 5. That’s funny because you expect 21st century Europe to be the first example in human history where immigration will have a negative effect on a society. In all other examples immigration has been a huge incentive, bringing over the most hardworking, most motivated people who have already been schooled, are in their prime age, and will work. By accepting a 21-year old male, an average European country saves between 150 000 - 165 000€, so if you calculate it the other way around, by accepting almost a million immigrants to Germany, the German government has just saved over 9 billion Euros per year over last 15 years due to the arrival of young people who don’t need further investment by the society. 4
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:27 | # Soren, even though your comment is not in the ballpark, I will leave it up because Kumiko will probably want to respond to it when she gets back. 5
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:44 | # A major nation leaving the EU would have massive ramifications. The EU project is very brittle. A major strike against it and the whole thing might collaspe. Eurosceptic sentiments are on the rise in almost every nation. No-one want the EU elite’s vision other than elites. Love Europe, hate the EU. 6
Posted by Morgoth on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:45 | # I’m rather baffled by the timing, they’ve picked peak migrant invasion season. The headlines are likely to be screaming out with images of swarthy Muslims climbing fences and armies of young men wandering into Europe. If it’s ok I’ll re-post this at my blog. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:37 | # Graham, I was wondering today what you would make of the somewhat confused signals emanating from the SNP. Do they quietly want a Leave vote? If so, can we expect many ordinary Scots, not devotees of the ways of the political world, to cotton on and deliver a substantial Leave vote? Morgoth, You are most welcome to repost this piece, although it was only a late-night off-the-cuff thing after reading Boris’s 10.00pm piece at the DT. The timing of June 23rd is chiefly mindful of the tendency, common with all governments, of voter fatigue at or over the half-way point of the administration ... the mid-term blues. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:58 | # Kumiko, The refugee issue is not the signal issue. As you must know, it is older and deeper than that offence against us, serious though it is. The forces shaping the world have been hostile to us and blind to our humanity and our needs for six full decades. They are taking away our countries and giving us nothing back in return. Sure, they tell us we are “safer” and “richer”, but we know that they are generating a vast and terrible threat, cultural, religious, and economic, for our children - more so than ever with this “crisis” - and they are bleeding us dry by taxation while driving down our income. Meanwhile, and this is the true offence, our greatest wealth and beloved home is being ripped away from us and bestowed upon the children of Pakistan and Nigeria, Jamaica and India; and we are told we are morally reprehensible merely for protesting the fact. That is always the real issue. That is why the elites will, eventually, pay a due price for their deeds, notwithstanding their arrogance and confidence today. We will have them in the end. 9
Posted by Morgoth on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:30 | # ‘‘The timing of June 23rd is chiefly mindful of the tendency, common with all governments, of voter fatigue at or over the half-way point of the administration ... the mid-term blues.’‘ An interesting point made on a Millennial Woes Hangout regarding the timing and the migrant crisis, by the end of the year Europe could be in chaos and so from an establishment point of view get the referendum in a soon as is possible, basically caging us in a death trap. 10
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:58 | # This first response is to Soren, who sounds a bit like he’s a social democrat. I’ll respond to everyone else afterwards. Soren, you say that my ‘fears’ are ‘natural’, in that tone that we’ve come to know so well from European social democrats, the tone which implies that we are arguing from emotions not rooted in rational thinking. This is of course wrong as usual, since the entire European Union is an economic project, and markets are based on ‘fear and greed’. This is not a bad thing, so if I’m exhibiting ‘fear’, that is only because your vaunted economy is so bad that it warrants this ‘fear’. I’ll show that through my responses to the points you raised. Point 1: That is yet another reason why Britain needs to leave the EU. Point 2: You think that they are useful, whereas I think that they are useless. But they are still cattle. Another problem with these cattle is that they have a bad habit of actually trying to raise their hands against the masters in this world, but that’s another issue. Most migrants are male, you agree with me on this, and you also agree that Europe has more females than males in it. Therefore, why would you want to change that? There is no reason to change that. Your examples are also wrong. Russia is not a woman-dominated society, and China does not have a low crime rate everywhere. Almost all the problems caused in China are attributable to men. Why? Because when it comes to certain kinds of crime, men are massively overrepresented. If you think that my talking point is anti-male, I couldn’t care less, collect your tears in a giant jug and I’ll pour them out like water and drink them. See here:
Welcome to the reality. Point 3:
With a picture of failure that looks like that, and with social democrats all over Europe refusing to acknowledge that reality, give me one good reason why anyone should invest in the Eurozone, or buy any government bonds for Eurozone states, when I could instead support the ‘OUT’ campaign in the UK and invest in East Asia where common sense and sanity still prevail? Point 4:
They urgently want everyone’s money! In my view, all of these people who will be issuing bonds should go and fuck themselves. You can’t just create an emergency, lie about the specifics of how to fix that emergency, show me nothing that indicates that there is any upside to anything that is happening, and then start beating on drums and tooting on horns while calling for everyone in the world to lend money to European governments through the purchasing of bonds. This is why I said that “I’m out”. There is no way that anyone should want to pay for any of that. No one should pay one single dollar, yen, yuan, or pound, to any European government that is trying to raise funds, until said European governments clearly indicate that the money is going to be spent on deporting and repelling migrants, rather than trying to foolishly accept migrants. And I don’t want to see any fungibility shenanigans either. For example, let’s say that candy costs 200 Yen, and weed costs 200 Yen. If a child has 200 Yen and I tell that child, “I’ll lend you another 200 Yen, and that’s for candy, and not weed”, technically I would still be funding the weed, because the child can simply allocate my 200 Yen to candy, and then be free to use their own 200 Yen for weed. So European governments should have their bonds shunned until such time as they stop finding ways to spend people’s money on the process of accepting migrants. Similar to how the child in that example should not be lent any money until such time as it stops finding ways to spend people’s money on weed. Point 5: 1. Western Europeans entering North America I think the more salient question should be, has there ever been a time in the history of the entire world, where mass migration of divergent groups into each other’s civic spaces, has not created some kind of problem? Again, no one should have any confidence in the Eurozone until such time as they stop piling up future disasters for themselves. 11
Posted by Astounded on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 02:13 | # Sören: I hope you are not an utter imbecile as you seem, but just a young and brainwashed leftist. 12
Posted by Enuf on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 03:52 | #
No shit. And that rat bastard Soros. I hope he dies at the hands of those animals. 13
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:41 | # Regarding the reason behind Soren’s strange beliefs, it’s largely because social democrats, the rank and files ones, naively seem to have an absolute conviction that all humans are the same, and that their underdog fantasies about ‘enlightened Arabs’ were somehow ‘true’. The modern European social democrat desperately wants to believe that most Arabs are different from what they obviously are like. This requires a complete denial of all reality. I’ve seen all kinds of truly bewildering comparisons being made by them, where they are trying to say that inviting millions of random Arabs and North-East Africans, into your countries is somehow ‘the same’ as taking people from sixth-form colleges and from universities in, listed in no particular order: 1. Trinidad and Tobago, “Relax, it will be just like it was in those times!” they are always saying, as though they don’t understand that human biodiversity exists, and as though they don’t understand that when they accepted those above-listed kind of immigrants from the south and east of the globe into Europe, they were mostly dodging the bullet and selecting for the best of those societies rather than the worst. And it is as though they don’t understand that those societies are all superior to any society in the Middle East or North-East Africa. The Arabs and Africans who are migrating from Syria, Iraq, and parts of North-East Africa into Europe now, are people who never experienced a European-style higher educational system, people who can barely read and write their own language much less a European language, and who were from the socially-conservative segment of those societies which had always resisted ‘modern education’. Taking Syria as an example, since 1975, the socially conservative morons in the Sunni dominated areas of Syria have been engaged in a culture war against all forms of modernisation and against education itself. It was those Sunni Arabs who are now entering Europe in a flood, who are the same exact Sunni Arabs who forced the Syrian government to draft the concession constitution of 1975 in Syria, which re-conferred status onto religious authorities and institutions in those communities. And it is those same Sunni Arabs in those areas of Syria who rose up in rebellion in 1982 at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood, and who rose up again in 2011 as ‘the rebels and their supporting population’. Yet social democrats cover their eyes and say that they can see no difference between these people randomly rushing at Europe’s borders, when compared to the immigrants from the elsewhere who entered legally and were rigorously selected for. They think that to see a difference here would be ‘racist’. And it is, but it’s also rational. Here’s TIMMS 2007: [Link: PDF 13.4 MiB] Here’s TIMMS 2011: [Link: PDF 10.6 MiB] The 2007 date is the more important one, since that is the last time that the Syrian Arab Republic appears on the list, for the reasons that are obvious. Syria was pretty peaceful in 2007, and yet anyone can see the absolutely awful and subterranean results that they produce. When European social democrats try to spin this as some kind of cunning game to acquire a new workforce with minimal effort, it is madness. In the 2007 benchmark, of the Syrian students at Grade 8, 83% of them fail to achieve the intermediate benchmark. The low benchmark is described as:
53% of the Syrian students failed to demonstrate that. The intermediate benchmark is described as:
83% of the Syrian students failed to demonstrate that. No matter how you look at it, it is ridiculous. The boys from Syria are not the future designers of Volkswagons and BMWs, they are the future criminal underclass of thugs and rapists, and welfare claimants. 14
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:14 | #
Yes, I agree. This latest push of migrants from the Middle East and Africa is really their most brazen attempt yet though, because they knew already that they were on thin ice yet they just kept trying to outdo themselves. They clearly have gall beyond gall. Previously they had invited people into Europe—particularly in the case of the UK—by arguing that these were people who you had ‘responsibility over’ because of the commonwealth, or that the immigrants are allies who are working toward the same goals. In the case of this migration wave that they are now trying to bring, the exhibition of their gall is that they are now literally importing a population group that they themselves had designated as an enemy in a war that is still ongoing. This might be the first time in the history of the world that one region went to war against people in another region while simultaneously allowing unmonitored mass migration to take place between those same regions. The political class in Europe basically is taking the European people (and indeed even the immigrants and descendants of immigrants who came here in the 1960s to 1990s) for absolute and complete fools. The backlash is going to be enormous, and multifaceted. 15
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:14 | # I’m a little bit curious about Boris Johnson being looked upon with optimism. When at one time I organized a conference that included some prominent Jewish scholars, I was encouraged to contact Johnson’s office in London because he was seen (by Jewish professors) as being friendly to theirs and liberal causes generally. I would not personally expect to get anything like a receptive response form his London Mayor’s office but it was surprisingly friendly to my appeal for his participation and support (though he did not ultimately make time or allocate any resource for the conference). Of course Boris Johnson might be the best on offer, but I would tend to look upon this guy’s concern for immigration control with extreme skepticism based on the people I’ve known who think he is OK. 16
Posted by Sören on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:55 | # I’m no leftist and I’m quite far from being social democrat, but I can tell you what I’m not: a conservative. (Now, it might be difficult to grasp, but political beliefs do not exist on linear scale for over 150 years now - but the words are still used as they come handy when trying to explain things to simple minded people). I believe in high individual AND economic freedom, unlike you who seem to believe in no individual and high economic freedom (reread your point on Breivik if you don’t recognise yourself in this assessment) making you a totalitarian and me a libertarian, if you need the labels that bad. I think that borders are unnatural, I myself being an example of somebody living the European dream of being born in one place, living in another, working in a third place, still thinking where to spend my old age. Thank you, Schengen. I see where you are coming from and whereas our ideas diverge on some points which could be open to discussion. For example your pointing out of immigration to N-America as a failure whereas you are forgetting that through this immigration a superpower and an unquestioned leader of 20th century was created (who’s very far from being challenged). You might disagree on whether the US is a model to follow, and indeed I am not a proponent of federated Europe neither, but it really can’t be questioned that the riches of the US is based on immigration. You only prove my point (that immigration does not “break” countries and I had in mind the social systems and their economies) through giving examples from high middle age and early modern era. It looks like you prefer to ignore the original problem pointed out by yourself (whether an economy can handle immigration) and prefer to go for the low hanging fruit of survival and I can only imagine you must be part of those “white race is being endagered” people which for me is a pseudo-problem, I don’t care and I wouldn’t mind further cultural shifts in Europe. We have been going through cultural shifts for the entire history of humankind and for example, the UK today displays nothing worthy of clinging on to in the way you seem to be doing it. If a culture needs to be protected, it is already too late. You think the Irish or the Scots will once again start speaking their own languages? No, you guys have annihilated their culture through systemic favouring of the English culture. I wouldn’t mind the English culture being swapped for something less aggressive, but unfortunately I don’t think this is actually happening. But I do like the idea of people like you weeping over it. Now, on the other hand I did notice that you said you believe certain people are essentially trash and that’s where our discussion ends. I don’t mind being called young or idiot, or whatever, especially in short comments where no objections are made to my views, but referring to other ethnic groups being inferior to us is simply ridiculous. If you sincerely believe that Arabs are inferior to us, then no study or empirical examples could change your mind. On that point, I am logging off, go grab a croissant or pain au chocolat avec un café and enjoy the Euromisery you so bad want to get away from. Enjoy your one way trip to isolation and marginalisation. PS, the way you treat your muslim minority, the mini-sharias popping up all over the UK are quite understandable. Wonder why we don’t get those in France? 17
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:19 | # I’ll respond to DanielS first:
Yes, Boris Johnson is a special case, because he’s very affable and is basically is the kind of person who wants to be friends with everyone no matter who they are, so long as it advances his own objectives. This is ironically a good thing now, even though on most days it’s actually a bad thing. This sounds surprising, but I’ll explain how. So this was like a bluffing game that he was playing under the expectation that everyone was going to cave in, and that he’d be supporting the ‘IN’ campaign. As it turns out, the EU refuses to change, migrants continue to be welcome, and his nonsensical claim about there being no ‘no-go zones’ in London is being disproven every day. So now he’s on the opposite side of the line, as the most energetic face of the ‘OUT’ campaign. Because let’s be real, Priti Patel is nice, but she was not capable of rivalling David Cameron in terms of name recognition. Another factor that is contributing to this is Boris Johnson’s personal rivalry with David Cameron, and the fact that there was a charismatic power vacuum in the ‘OUT’ campaign that he could fill so as to be on the opposite side of David Cameron and finally ‘beat’ him, something that he’s wanted to do ever since his time as a student at Eton. So we have a situation that has developed because of the following events aligning at the same time: 1. “Refugees welcome” continuing ahead crazily because the German political class wants to kill Europe. All of this is of course highly exploitable, and could end with the UK exiting the EU. You could call it a case of reality asserting itself in a networked way. It’s not any one person causing this, but rather a number of different vectors, some personal, some institutional, that are all converging on one resultant. That’s usually how politics works, but some big signal has to happen to cause all of these actors to begin calling for ‘OUT’, and the events of the past week combined with the ongoing migrant crisis have created the perfect storm for all of these to become activated and relevant at the same time. 18
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:24 | # Kumiko, what hand do you think The US is likely to play on these issues? I should add regarding Boris Johnson, that this does not mean we should trust him. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:04 | # Sören, It is important that you do not presume to know who a nationalist is, or what nationalism itself constitutes, or why nationalists believe what they believe and say what they say. Nationalism is unknown to you. Suffice to say that it does not abide within the liberal Weltanschauung, which is all you know. It is the politics of particular people’s interests. It is NOT the politics of the unfettered will. It cannot be interpreted in terms of the politics of the unfettered will. That politics - liberalism - does not possess a functioning critique of it. There are, however, tens of thousands of products of liberalism like you, to a man lacking vast areas of knowledge both of themselves and of the world, who have a need to affect a moral authority while advancing argument that is so impoverished and hackneyed, and wrong on every point of substance, that, frankly, it is almost embarrassing to have to correct it. It would be a good idea for you people to speak less and ask questions more, so that you will have the opportunity to actually understand the thing you so wish to demonise. At MR, as it happens, you have a unique opportunity to do that. But experience tells me that you won’t have the courage to try. 20
Posted by Sören on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:52 | # First of all, I never mentioned nor referred to nationalism, what’s up with all the assuming on this website.. I don’t even remember what I googled to end up here, but I really should pay more attention. Now to your condescending comment. Not a question of courage, but experience. I’ve also held the same beliefs you hold today. But personal experiences have made me who I am today. I used to go to nationalist rallies, run around with a flag (very heartwarming, I was a teenager after all), but after actually meeting the people I used to fight against, I guess I softened up. I understand why you are on defensive, after all I came picking a fight in the wrong hood. But I’m really not in the mood of “debating” with people who build their arguments on their opinion and assumptions of me. Therefore thank you, but no thank you, I don’t need your enlightenment. 21
Posted by future on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:47 | # Hey Sören, this is your wished future: http://www.amren.com/features/2015/07/an-african-planet/ 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:48 | # Sören, Your comment at 3:2 and 3:5 and your remarks throughout 16 reveal a deep ignorance of and contempt for nationalist and patriotic sentiment. You say you are a libertarian. Do you mean the 20th century or second-wave variant or the classical one? In any case, escaping one’s possession by liberal values is a permanent condition. Nobody who has made the journey into understanding of the world walks back into the dark. You were never a nationalist because you had never made that journey (which usually takes two to five years to travel, btw). You never travelled. Allow me to prove it, and to discover also whether you can, in fact, think. What is the ultimate interest in human life? 23
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:09 | # @GW The SNP is generally pro-EU but this is partially for reasons of cultural politics (“oh look we Scots are nothing like those awful little Englanders etc.”). I would think the SNP would like a split decision (Scotland votes to stay, England votes to leave) thus they hope giving them a pretext for a second indy-ref. Which would likely be won if opinion polls are to be believed (under the scenario outlined support for Scottish independence rises to the 60% range). Strange times. Ultimately the internal effects within the UK cannot be predicted and it will be English based voters that will decide the stay or leave question on the EU. It’s a great weakness of the leave campaign that it is quite so Tory dominated. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:31 | # Unfortunately, Graham, the Labour Party doesn’t care that much about issues of freedom, sovereignty and national destiny. The greatest cause in all human existence is worker’s rights, doncha know. 25
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:56 | # I’ll break down my response to Soren, since I want to address each section separately:
I’m not a conservative either.
I agree, and that is in no way difficult to grasp for me. In my case, in the long-term, I support making policy choices that will open the door for national syndicalism to potentially be built in the developing world in Asia and in the developed world in Europe. That’s very much in my interest in the long term. But simultaneously in the short-term and medium term, this means that I have to advocate making choices within the present liberal-capitalist system, choices that sometimes look like ‘no win’ choices, with the aforementioned long-term view in mind. What I’m doing in this case is most properly called ‘ideological cynicism’, and ‘ideological cynicism’ which is where a person recognises their own long-term material self-interest behind the mask of an ideology, and can see the distance between their self and that ideological mask, and yet rather than renouncing the mask, the person chooses to retain it. Faced with ‘war for oil’, and ‘transfer of factories to the peripheries’, rather than criticising this, I instead ask, “What is the probable long-term effect of this, and does it advance or retard our goals?” For example, taking oil out of the hands of reactionary Arabs and allocating it to developing economies in Asia is good for everyone, and better yet if it can be done under the rhetoric of ‘defending the international order that flourished after NATO won the Iraq war of 1991’, even though that is qualitatively and morally no different than ‘defending the international order the flourished after Mongols sacked Iraq in 1258’, for all I care. At the same time, conflict itself builds a sense of purpose and national solidarity against an enemy, and becomes a conveyor belt for ethno-nationalist induction. It would be difficult for someone to place that on the linear political scale, since in some contexts I would appear to be neoliberal, even though I am not. So your impression of me would be different depending on what we are talking about, and how probing your questions are.
I’ll admit to that, sure.
Yes, but everything that falls outside of the liberal spectrum is considered to be ‘totalitarian’ by liberals. The word ‘totalitarian’ was marshalled after the Second World War to be used as a blanket description of all non-liberal ideologies. But liberalism itself is also totalitarian, as it too seeks to be a complete system which penetrates every sphere of life.
Schengen was nice, until you all began to foolishly allow Syrian and Iraqi Arabs to totally exploit it, by refusing to actually defend the borders. Germany’s systematic austerity assault against Greece formed a large part of the weakening of Europe’s external borders. The completely misguided and idiotic support for Libyan rebels opened all of the southern migration routes even as the capability for defending the southern border from the European side of the Mediterranean had been eroded. I am also an example of someone living the ‘international dream’. Being born in one place, going to school in multiple places, and working in another place, is what I’ve done, but I never actually considered this to be a ‘dream’, it’s just a thing that happens. I don’t understand why so many Europeans think that travelling confers some kind of cosmopolitan identity onto a person, nor do I understand why they assume that caring about ties of blood and ethnicity means that a person hasn’t travelled anywhere. On the contrary, the more a person travels, the more that they should find themselves defending their own interests.
From the perspective of the Native Americans, that migration was entirely at their expense and to their detriment, which is my point. Where are the Native Americans now?
That depends on how you define what a ‘country’ is. I’m operating on the assumption that a ‘country’ is an ethno-state or a confederation of interlocking radiating clan interests that have risen to attain military and socio-economic hegemony over a civic space. So if the persons behind the state’s creation are removed from power, I would consider it to no longer be the same country.
How have I ignored the original problem? I showed pretty clearly that the European economy is not ready for this and never will be.
This is not about ‘preventing cultural shifts’. It’s about making sure that whatever cultural shifts do occur, are decided by the people of these islands, and that can only be achieved through the maintenance of their social and economic dominance over this space. I’m not clinging to anything. I’m only advocating that the transformative process of culture continually being created and destroyed, is something that the inhabitants of a nation should want to keep themselves in charge of, so as to ensure that it is always a hospitable environment for themselves. This is not about ‘clinging to traditional values of the past’ for me. I don’t care about traditional values at all. Maintaining the core demographics is the way to secure the future, because it’s demographics which will determine what pattern future progress will look like.
No. A culture, which is not a static thing, but rather is a continually transforming process, always has to be protected, in the same way as the front door of your house has to be protected otherwise you won’t be the person who determines what happens inside that house for very long. This is about power, not about sentimentality. I prefer that Europeans should continue to control Europe without interruption. That’s better for the Europeans, and it’s also better for me too.
Well, that can’t be directed at me. When English, Irish, and Scots were fighting each other, my ancestors were all still in East Asia. So I didn’t annihilate anything in the British isles.
I don’t think I’m weeping over anything. I’ll only cry if I don’t get what I want, but right now I seem to be getting what I want.
It’s not ridiculous. The Arabs that are coming across the border into Europe are clearly trash, everyone can see it, and I demonstrated it to you with statistics.
Bring me some studies and empirical examples of them not being inferior. You can’t! If you are writing your post on a tablet or a phone, you are using a CPU designed by ARM, a design centre in Cambridge, and the GPU is probably designed in Hertfordshire. The screen is probably made in Japan by Sharp. If you are writing your post on an x86 PC, literally every component is probably manufactured in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and China, and designed in design centres based in United States, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and China. The entire modern world, the entire internet of things (IoT) is basically made by us. Asians and Europeans. What did Arabs do to contribute to that? Nothing whatsoever. Well you could say that they contributed oil to run the industries, but we had to go in there to get that oil, they didn’t do anything to create it, it was simply under their feet. Iraq and Syria have unemployment rates among their young people that sit around 50%, and the Middle East as a whole has the highest youth unemployment rate in the entire world. They sit around doing nothing all day. They subsist almost entirely on social services wealth transfers taxed from the extraction of oil by Arab states, the overhead of which is passed through oil prices onto consumers everywhere. Arabs are literally the filthy parasite hobos of the world. If all the Arabs died of a heart attack tomorrow morning, nothing of value would be lost. The rest of the world would simply have direct access to oil, without having to deal with the existence of these hobos.
The UK will not be isolated, nor will it be marginalised. It’s one of the most vibrant economies in the world, and liberating itself from the EU doesn’t mean that it has no options. It means that now it can more easily get involved in emerging markets in Asia, and it can be more agile than it was previously. That’s the upside, and that’s absolutely in my interest, so I’m sure I’ll be fine either way. Regarding European food, I have no hatred of it, but when I think about it, I realise that I hardly even eat western food in the first place. 26
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:53 | #
GW, though this remark of yours may appear to the casual reader as being offhand, it actually beckons an important difference between what would be a White left and a Marxist left. A White Left would consider the class synonymous with Whites, their kinds and nations and would recognize the workers as important, sure - but, it would also recognize that there is a fuller range of person positions and concerns that must go into the maintenance of the White class. Moreover, the workers cannot always be trusted to maintain the interests and borders of the people; not with the help of a cadre of “intellectuals” telling them all they need to know either. In a word, they can be some of the biggest idiots and reckless no accounts with regard to our peoples that there are. And we all know where those “intellectuals” might be coming from. It has been shown that working class “communities” don’t necessarily form their own ideas, but frequently adopt ideas derived from academia. And, for example, the idea handed down to them from academia might be the objectivist based philosophy of American individualism - that they just acquired all their individual abilities from god-given/natural endowment and advanced their skills sheerly from having picked themselves up by their bootstraps, absent any social mentoring and historical evolutionary endowment from their people. With that argument then they are liable to take a sheer “best man for the job” (in this very moment) stance, such that “a person with a different skin color should be able to have the job if they have the skills.” Or, they might say, “these other native British folks don’t give a fig about me, I’ve got to do my job, make my money, keep my money, look after my nuclear family and I can’t be bothered with looking after everyone and a whole race that doesn’t care about me.” Finally, these people who congratulate themselves and lord themselves for their hard work and the deservingness of their earnings, often do not want to acknowledge that they have gotten their positions and skills by means of some form of nepotism, family or social support because they want to believe everything comes from the greatness of their wonderfulness. It can be quite the opposite, that they can be some of the most self righteous, socially disagreeable people of all - all big ego and sharp elbows that prevent others who might just as well contribute if not to the grindstone that they are turning, then to another grindstone or another function necessary to social group homeostasis. In their self righteousness, they can lend themselves to some of the crassest of anti-social divisions of labor, overvaluations and undervaluations of person positions; and consequently, the breakdown of the social system and its defense. In a word, significant respect and attention to work and the workers is necessary, but it can very much be an over focus - to the detriment of maintaining the borders of the social group, a.k.a. nationalism - whether through the capitalist or Marxist model. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:04 | # Actually, Daniel, I “miss-spoke” at 24. The greatest cause in all human existence is not worker’s rights but protecting worker’s rights. The Labour Party, you see, is not engaged upon an expansive, creative, epochal politics of gifting the working man power over his destiny. Gone is all trace of that … of the radicalism of the honest, steadfast men who created the movement, and who were the philosophical descendants of the Levellers and the debators of Putney (ordinary Englishmen, mostly soldiers, who dreamed of a dignified English freedom before Hobbes and Locke wrote a single word, and one hundred and fifty years before the radical egalitarians of revolutionary France took their seats to the left side of their revolutionary parliament). This Labour Party now seeks only to draw the wagons around the camp ... to stave off the evils of neoliberalism but not its shrinking take-home pay ... to fight the “Tory cuts” to welfare and the public services in which its client groups are employed but not the cuts to the social capital and to the national identity which the modern economic dispensation requires. Economically, Labour is slowly, steadily turning into a conservative movement. It is dying. It could still pick itself up even now, and raise its banners aloft, and march against globalism and the corporatocracy, but that would mean opposing the corporatocracy’s endless importation of foreign labour; and that, of course, would be the postmodern sin of “racism”, and nothing is worse than “racism”. So very, very bad is “racism” that the Labour Party actually prefers to become the corporatocracy’s donkey-brained menial, cheer-leading gormlessly but, of course, also neurotically for multiculturalism even though that means betraying its white-working class roots, and the white working class with them. I will not speak of the English, by the way, as a social group. As I have tried to point out for some time, I see your ordering of “the social” and “the genetic” as ontologically back-to-front. Your redefinition of “left” and “right” seems to owe more to semiotics than to philosophy. Put another way, the notion that “the right” is merely an exercise in the ism of the individual, or that the concern of “the left” is “unionising” is, at best, an overlay. Discrimination for self, be it individual or collective, raises the essential question, which self? The concern of the authentic one is for being. Anything else and we’re talking about personality, Time and Place, and error. As with Prof MacDonald’s cleavage of individualism and altruism, I don’t doubt that your categorisations are perfectly justified by the taxonomic standard which is applied in academia. But I find myself drawn into searching the evolutionary history of Mind for a point where traits tending to individual identity and traits tending to group identity (not needs) must synthesise or co-operatively function. I would like to believe that their cleavage is only a product of ordinary waking consciousness and its disassociating effects. 29
Posted by Gi on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 02:50 | # Guys, this is way off topic, but I wanted to ask: whatever became of “Caius Marcus?” He used to post on here back when I frequented the site. It’s been a long time. Thanks. 30
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 04:03 | # I forgot to respond to DanielS from earlier:
They seem to be split on the issue as well. It is and always has been the preference of the Americans that the UK should remain in the EU in order to give it a transatlantic colour and for other security-related reasons. However, the American establishment is probably now aware that their own race-blind policies (example: the US State Department actively lobbied for multicultural policies in France, even though the CIA explicitly asked them not to exacerbate that disaster) are part of what have led to this conflagration, so the outgoing president is making different sounds compared to what the establishment’s incoming choice is making. Barack Obama and John Kerry both sounded notes of alarm and warning at the possibility of a Brexit as soon as Boris Johnson announced that he was joining the ‘OUT’ campaign. That was pretty much a predictable thing. However, Marco Rubio had already said the opposite of that back in November 2015. That is actually significant, because there is very little chance that Rubio would have made that statement without being told by the framework to say it. Ted Cruz has also echoed it. It’s a bit early to be making forecasts, but my thought is that the diplomatic and trade machinery of the Americans inside Europe, from their embassies and their industrial lobbying positions, will try to support all the arguments against Brexit up until they realise that this thing is really happening, and then they will flip sides and decide that they actually support Brexit and that they already had some ‘new’ (actually: old) ideas that would be unharmed by a Brexit, and that they can live with it, because they want to be on ‘the winning side’ whichever side that happens to be. ‘Getting on both sides of the issue’, basically hedging, is something that Americans do every time there are referenda that they can’t predict the outcome of.
Of course. The best way to model his behaviour is to model him as though he were a cynical opportunist and then behave the same way toward him. Even if it is not the case, it is the model which allows for the least possibility of getting taken off guard by any unpleasant surprises, and it allows everyone to maintain a certain tactical distance from the person of Boris Johnson. People should not make the same kind of mistake with Boris Johnson now, that the Alt-Right are already making by cuddling up too close to Donald Trump. There should be no ‘romance’ involved. Boris Johnson’s present moves should be supported, but a healthy scepticism and caution about what he might do next, should be maintained at all times. 31
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:02 | # Well, GW, I’m NOT going to defend the Labour party (nor particularly the left side of the French Court, for that matter) and will raise no objections to your comment at all up to this point:
“Racism” if it were ever ascribed a sin by an epoch and not by Jews, would be a sin according to modernism - for its sine qua non objective of objective purity without “prejudice” ..although that has precedents in both stoicism and epicureanism (epicureansm especially). Post modernity is naturally and logically conceived to allow people to reconstruct their “traditions”, where modernity had crassly and ill advisedly run over them..and one of those “traditions” would be reconstructing race’s existence as opposed to allowing the pure modernist experiment to proceed unabated. So you see that this “semantic” and “academic” distinction is very relevant to us, in fact of central concern and cannot be left solely to the devices of liberal academics, let alone Jewish academics who are passing off the very misunderstanding of postmodernity that you partake of in that sentence… You are apparently reacting to some semantic distortions of academics without realizing that you are falling into others of theirs. And with that, that nefarious Jewish and liberal academic corruption of what the “left” means, reinterpreted contradictorily to mean in common understanding a synonym for liberalism, is the fountainhead and source of that destruction and perversity that is the Labor Party. “The Labor Party” is a misnomer in fact. Let me address this next matter, where you say:
Firstly, it is not a linear process as I see it, nor in fact, but rather a two way hermeneutic process of feedback from the more tightly empirical to the the more speculative means to comprehend and reach agreement among the people through narrative and concept. To say the English are not a social group, is a bit like Thatcher saying that “there is no such thing as society” and may stem from similar philosophical origins. Though in your case, I “suspect” more the analytic school of Russel and Whitehead than that of the adherents to the followers of their student Wittgenstein as he more faithfully attempted to carry-out their quest for “a complete and unassailable” ontological language game in the Tractatus Logico Philosphicus - which inspired the Austrian school, both of postivism and of economics, in turn of Thatcher and her consequent statement that there was no such thing as society. That whole line of thinking was denied even by the later Wittgenstein as he became apprised of The Post Modern Project and its necessity proper - the proper form which I am designating White Post Modernity in order to distinguish it from the Jewish corruption of the term (as liberalism) that they are sending to the masses from their academic perches. While a modernist might try to blindly say that there is no such thing as the social group, “English”, and a Jew would try to have people believe that, a White post modernist and hermeneutecist knows that there is a social group, “The English” and that they are real.
This semiotic distinction is very philosophically important, though you are perhaps not seeing it as you may not have time to read what I say or survey the destruction that Jews and our own people in White advocacy circles are making of our defense for failure to wrest these distinctions and render them properly in our defense.
Baloney. A social classification functions very much like a union and that is what Locke attempted to deny the empirical existence of with his concept of individual rights - and their being written into the US constitution and ascribed universal status is no trivial philosophical matter. They will ascribe negative existence to Whites, if any, doing their best to associate us with the Right in its objectivist quests for sublime purity - as those quests will distance us from compassion and social justice (therefore scaring our people away and disorganizing them where not pitting them against us) and as those quests for purity will deny the existence of our race, even, where “objective” purity is held to be so dear. They will do everything to turn our people off to the best and most important concepts of social organization - saying not only that race is a social construct, but that the White race is JUST a social construct. Of course that sends our people into pure right wing and anti social pursuits to say that our race is “not a social responsibility but based on truth and reality” - as if social constructionism proper (unfettered by Jewish perversion of the concept) would say that the White race is not real. The Left is associated with both “the empirical fiction” of social unionization and also with reckless/compassionate liberalism in public minds as a Jewish prescribed contradiction. So it begs the important philosophical sorting and question - unionization of who? Crucially, the left is also seen as the broad classificatory basis by which to hold elites to account and to keep rank and file from “scabbing” (these are analogies for race traitors when applied to the racial union). To wrest this social organizing function from Jewish capacity to define them for us is essential. (hence my fight with Millennial Woes fair Jewish maiden, “The Truth Will Live”, as she sought to maintain the Jewish capacity to define these terms for us). These distinctions and their correct sorting on our behalf is not a trivial veneer and it would be contributing to our enemies to try to put aside what I am saying as such.
I am not saying there is no self collective or individual and that it is not important to investigate the fine points of discrimination.
I don’t know why you use the word personality. But language and narrative are not mere decoration of the truth, they are the means by which we carry and convey those parts of our system that cannot be perceived empirically in the instant - though they are real and important - such as “the English people”
Please, GW, do not give Tanstaafl that bone and broadbrush me with MacDonald’s thing as Tanstaafl tried to broadbrush me with. First of all, MacDonald is committing more your error in trying to over empiricize our problems by ascribing this thing “pathological altruism” as an endemic affliction and quite strictly a disease that our individual nature and psychology is prone to. You know why Tanstaafl tried to say that I was trying to “blame Whites” just like MacDonald? Because he wants Hitler to have all the answers. His pride is wrapped up in the accomplishments of people who passed through his auspices and his dismay is similarly with their destruction; he is unable or unwilling to see any other way to redemption but redemption of Hitler. The best way to do that is to say that all of our problems are singularly the Jew… not that we have susceptibilities as a result of our objectivity and philosophy thereupon, for example. He doesn’t like it when I talk about Descartes, praxis and hermeneutics…wants to say that is Jewy, muddleheaded, psuedo intellectual academic jargon. It doesn’t matter to him that when he said “anti-racism” is a Jewish construct that I readily agreed. He wanted to believe that that trumped what I’d said, when I said that “anti-racism” is Cartesian, it is prejudiced, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people. Both statements are true and useful. But he wants to distract from my point and to say that I am being “too wordy” and trying to distract from the Jewish question because he wants EVERYTHING to be about the Jewish question because that will “justify” Hitler and those who adhere to him as the only ones serious about Jewish power and influence.
Well, I will leave aside that you might be taking an interactive process and making it static in an unhelpful (yes, Cartesian) way by wanting to look upon it as strictly static as opposed to narrative and interactive, including socially interactive.
That is fine, I don’t have a problem with that part, what is troubling is when you want to see and perhaps believe it true that what I am doing conflicts with that end of the project of defending ourselves, being ourselves, however you want to call it.
You might wish to believe that but even if it is true, you are going to put it into words, narrative form and argue the case with others so that they, as English people in particular, can understand themselves as a social group and not only function accordingly despite the fact that empirical evidence of its importance is not always readily available, but hand that historically corrected narrative of identity down to their posterity as well, so that they are not misguided for momentary empirical evidence or rogue, anti English group narratives. While I am not exactly dancing on Thatcher’s grave, maybe Graham is, right along with Elvis. 32
Posted by notrid on Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:32 | # Sören wrote: “referring to other ethnic groups being inferior to us is simply ridiculous.” Read this: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php 33
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 01:44 | # Indeed. But what can be anticipated is that between now and June, the Cameron government will be using every tool at its disposal to try to nudge people away from any line of reasoning that might lead to an support for ‘Leave’, because they don’t want to change course at all. I fully expect that we’ll all end up kickboxing on the internet against productions that are partly influenced by the kind of things that they learned from the Behavioural Insights Team and other similar groups. 34
Posted by Kemp, "Brexit is Meaningless" on Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:11 | #
35
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 23 Apr 2016 21:40 | # The Behavioural Insights Team and whoever else is running the ‘IN campaign’ has obviously been busy over the past few weeks, because they’ve been pulling out all of the stops. Firstly they went with the narrative of laziness which is to be expected. In the concept of ‘nudging’, you make it seem like it’s both easier and safer to just do nothing, and then associate one’s own stance with ‘doing nothing’. This has been done by them, by their basically saying that leaving the EU would be supposedly ‘a leap in the dark’, and so on. The second element that they’ve been doing is using British taxpayers’ money to fund the mailing of an ‘IN campaign’ propaganda leaflet to every household in the country. And now the most recent element is brining Barack Obama into the country so that he can make vague threats on America’s behalf, and then calling anyone who disagrees with him a ‘racist’ and implying that the ‘OUT campaign’ is ‘a turn away from the world’, even though actually the ‘OUT campaign’ liberates the UK from the confines of being inside the EU customs union. It’s almost like a parallel universe that the media is operating in. The fourth element that has been quietly underpinning everything and which no one has talked about, is the elephant in the room called ‘Greece’ because there is another Greek economic crisis brewing which they do not want to talk about or mention in the news until after June 23. There is also an immigration report which they do not want to talk about until after June 23 as well. The task of those of us who support Brexit, will be to basically keep exposing everything that is happening, and to provide a positive vision of what life would be like for Britain outside of the EU. Post a comment:
Next entry: The demagoguery of the centre-right ‘neo-masculinists’ cannot conceal their traitorous countenance.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Rastus on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 01:48 | #
Might want to have some uh, sporting arms available as well as a good bit of canned food. Never know what might happen.