Theresa May’s Brexit election day - rolling thread

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 08 June 2017 05:41.

Well, it’s election day in Britain.  Again.  For nationalists there isn’t much to really get excited about.  But perhaps the divergent electoral fates of Marine Le Pen, in her attempt to win the French presidency on 7th May, and Theresa May, in her attempt today to be returned to Downing Street with a thumping majority, could be instructive.  Think back to last November and the euphoria which attended the election of Donald Trump.  A wave of anti-Establishment politics was sweeping across the West, we were confidently informed.  The world is changing.  Well yes, but the next big breakthrough?  Where was that to come?

Hofer in Austria looked highly promising, having beaten out the Establishment party candidates and only lost the run-off against Alexander Van der Bellen, an eccentric, Green left-liberal and immigration enthusiast, by a handful of votes amid discoveries of “irregularities” which aided Van der Bellen.  But far from such cheating enraging the Austrian public and adding to Hofer’s support, he actually lost electoral ground and picked up only 46% of the vote in the 4th December re-run.

It was much the same in France.  As expected, Marine Le Pen made it through to the run-off with the elitist parvenu Emmanuel Macron, but then could secure only 34.5% of votes cast – well below the 40% which FN was seeking to line her up for a serious shot at the Élysée in 2022.  Many voters held their nose, it was said, and voted against Front National.

“Lemmings!” was the response from nationalists everywhere,  “How bad does it have to get before the French vote for their own cause?”  Their preference for an obvious Establishment plant whose political loyalty is to the EU, and who loudly proclaims open borders and more immigration as common goods, is difficult-going-on-impossible to explain without impugning the average voter’s intelligence and understanding.

Contrast that with the regal progress of Theresa May to the closing of the polls tonight and the inevitable, towering victory that, for anyone for whom it is not fully evident now, will become so from the first declaration at about 11.45pm.

More or less the same patriotic tools … anti-EU politics, the promise of some immigration controls … a more robust approach to Islamic terror … are in play, attended by more or less the same collapse of the old centre left and right (ie, Blair/Brown - Cameron/Osborne).  But May is no nationalist and no anti-Establishmentarian.  She does not represent a radical and jarring challenge to the status quo.  At best, she represents the democratic will in the imminent battle with the unlovely EU bureaucracy.  She represents a popular preference for a new British future - and new growth - in a world of national and economic opportunity.  She represents safety, but a safety that dissenters and patriots can believe in and vote for.  She has kept our general constituency on-side.

Domestically, she began her campaign, at least, representing the search for a new political synthesis (in that respect, not so dissimilar to Macron).  She has pledged to focus on the “JAMS”, the just about managing who don’t live in hothouse London, and who, far from profiting from the recovery, have seen their living standards decline and their disposable income disappear.  Like Margaret Thatcher, who appealed to the upwardly mobile, small-c conservative C and D social classes, May has identified a large moral constituency which has been forgotten while New Labour rushed into a marriage of convenience with immigrants and David Cameron’s Tories did so with the international rich.  People believed her.  But then, apparently, she trusted one of her three closest SpADs to write the party manifesto; and everything began to unwind!

So here we are with peculiarly mixed polling data, some of it still pointing to a May majority of anything up to 100, some showing her only 1% ahead of Labour, facing the prospect of being returned to a Westminster with a majority even smaller than the present 12, or even a hung parliament.

A few places to watch:

South Thanet, where Tory MP and UKIP-turncoat Craig MacKinlay (who defeated Nigel Farage in May 2015 with some grossly creative accounting) will face prosecuting for electoral offences after it’s all over.  The decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to take him to court came after the electoral point of no return – MacKinlay could not pull-out.  So his name is on the ballot paper.  Even if he wins the election, a guilty verdict could see him locked up, meaning an early by-election.  So will the local electorate mechanically vote Tory?  Or, cheated of having Farage as their MP in 2015, will it now turn to UKIP candidate the Rev Stuart Piper?

Richmond-on-Thames, where Zac Goldsmith is vying to win back the seat he rather resoundingly and idiotically lost to the LibDem candidate Sarah Olney in the completely unnecessary by-election he triggered last year.  Richmond is prime Remain territory, Goldsmith an hereditary Leaver.  But more than half the Remainers are Leavers now, and Olney has not been exactly active in defending her seat.  Perhaps she doesn’t have to be.

Westmorland and Lonsdale, where the gurning, lightweight Lib-Dem leader Tim Farron, who has had a very poor, Remain-focussed election, is under pressure from the Tories.  I doubt if his Christian conscience about homosexuality will do him much harm in his constituency, and to unseat him would take a swing to the Tories well beyond the 8% which current national polling indicates.  But it’s by no means impossible, and it would be by no means undeserved.  At least the national media is energised about the potential for an upset.

Sheffield Hallam, where Nick Clegg, the former LibDem leader and Deputy Prime Minister in David Cameron’s coalition cabinet, is under pressure from Labour’s Jared O’Mara, a disability campaigner.  Clegg is a Remainer par excellence.  In a turnout of 67 per cent at last year’s Referendum, the Leave campaign got over the line by 6,000 votes - 51 per cent of the total.  A lot of people would like to see Clegg bite the electoral dust.  They just might.

Ealing Central and Acton, where Labour’s shadow Home Affairs Minister Rupa Huq is defending a 2015 majority of 274, the third smallest in the country.  The Green Party has stood down to give her a clear run.  It won’t be enough.  A Tory gain is inevitable.

Ilford North, where Wes Streeting, potentially an anti-Corbyn leadership hopeful, is defending a wafer-thin majority of 1.2% from the Tories.  He is a big Remainer and on a ‘save list’ of twenty MPs getting extra help from the pro-EU group Open Britain (read Peter Mandelson).  It won’t save him.

Hove, where Peter Kyle, another post-Corbyn leadership hopeful, is defending a narrow majority of 1236 from the Tories.  Though both parties are running a candidate, some tactical voting by LibDems and Greens might save him.  Brighton is queer that way.

Lancaster & Fleetwood, where the sexually versatile Cat Smith, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s more curious adornments to his shadow cabinet (with the novel brief for Voter Engagement and Youth Affairs), is defending a majority of 1265.

Wakefield, where Mary Creagh, who ran for Labour leader in 2015, has a 2015 majority of only 2613 over the Tories.  But UKIP polled 7,800 votes, and most of them will go somewhere else this time, and it is highly unlikely to be to Creagh.

Boston and Skegness, where UKIP’s avuncular, not entirely charismatic leader Paul Nuttall is standing.  His party is polling at 5% nationally.  But this is the seat which recorded the highest Leave vote in the EU Referendum last June.  In the 2015 general election the UKIP candidate polled 14,645 votes, only 4,363 less than the winning Tory.  For the leader of a party with no MPs, Nuttall has received a generous airing from the media - certainly more than his anonymous Tory opponent - and has had an OK campaign.  An honourable second place seems likely.

Hackney North and Stoke Newington, where Dianne Abbott, after the most calamitous media campaign in living memory (which cost her the role of shadow Home Secretary), is defending a vast multicultural majority.  She will, of course, win – and probably by 20,000+ votes.  But what will be the effect of her humiliations on national TV, if any?  A reduced turnout, perhaps?  It was only 56.8% last time.

For what it’s worth, my prediction is a Tory majority of 70 to 80 seats, so half again as many as the final polls suggest, and a bit better than half what it might have been if the useless SpAD hadn’t been trusted to do policy-making which no one was ever going to vote for, and which chimes perfectly with the old Nasty Party rhetoric, in an election manifesto.  It might also have helped quite a lot if May and her team had understood the national mood.

Three key issues which will be looming large by dawn tomorrow:

1. Where now for the cosmic struggle between the mainstream left and right?  Will the campaign debacle of care funding generate a much more assiduous attempt to develop a real, benign social politics called “Mayism”, and will it become the new centre.  If so, will that effectively leave the Blairite faction that survives, post-election, in the Labour Party with no constituency in the country?  Will the Labour Party - with or without Corbyn as its leader – effectively become the Momentum Party?

2. Is this finally the end for Remain?

3. Where now for UKIP?  Where now for dissent?  The answer seems obvious.  It is on everybody’s lips.  It has to do with Islam, immigration, and the crisis of terror.  But do the kippers have the constitution to open up that front?  Party members seem to.  The Party leadership doesn’t.

For anyone who is interested I will be running commentary through til daylight at least – later if there is a total shock and the outcome is not as expected.

Next up after Theresa’s gambit?  It’s France again and the two-part National Assembly elections on the 11th and 18th of this month.  Inevitably, Le Petit President Macron is enjoying a “honeymoon period” with the French voters, so we should not expect too much from FN.

See you later.



Comments:


1

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 16:04 | #

Final polls indicate a Tory majority of 96.  The private polling of the parties also show a substantial Tory win.  But the BBC exit poll of 30,000 voters predicts Tory 314, Labour 266, SNP 34, LD 14, UKIP 0; other 22.  So no overall majority for Theresa May, and coalition again.

3% swing to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour!  Very strange.


2

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 16:15 | #

A very high turnout with a large showing from the young is being proferred for the exit poll prediction.


3

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 16:27 | #

So the talking heads are suggesting a minority Conservative government, propped up by the unionist parties in Northern Ireland ... and the likelihood of another general election in the near future.


4

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 17:09 | #

Newcastle-upon-Tyne - safe Labour, Remain seat - swing from Conservative to Labour on a turnout up by 7%.

Next result Houghton & Sunderland South - safe Labour, Leave seat - large increase in turnout.

Next, Sunderland Central - safe Labour, Leave area - swing to the Tories from Labour of 3.2%.

Three Labour holds, of course, but actually the Tory vote increased across both slightly more than the Labour vote - perhaps the first hint of the exit poll underestimating the Tory vote.


5

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 17:59 | #

Next, Newcastle-upon-Tyne East - very safe Labour seat, student area, Remain area - big shift to Labour predicated on the collapse of the minor parties and the youth turnout.

Swindon North - first southern seat and safe for the Tories, Leave area - Tory vote up 3%, Labout vote up 10% (winning more from the minor party collapse).

Newcastle-upon-Tyne North - safe Labour seat, Remain area - near equal growth in the Tory and Labour votes.


6

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:11 | #

Shock that the pre-election expectations were so different to the early results is still the principal subject of discussion in the TV studios.  Everyone saying, “Nobody expected Jeremy Corbyn to do so well.”

One of the certainties is that short of a decent majority, no Conservative government will be able to prosecute a radical agenda, and that could extend to the Brexit negotiations.  Immigration reform, likewise, will go into deep freeze, notwithstanding the present security situation.


7

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:49 | #

Recount at Hastings & Rye - the ghastly Amber Rudd’s seat.

Seventeen seats have declared so far.  The Labour vote is up by 9.2%, the Conservative vote up 7.6%.

Scotland looks bad for the SNP, with gains for all three of the UK-wide parties.

Wales looks good for Labour.  The expected gains for the Tories seem unlikely to materialise.


8

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:33 | #

Tories have lost Battersea to Labour - before tonight not considered at risk by anybody.

With the wisdom of hindsight the talking heads are all settling on the same list of negatives for the Tories ... no need for this election to be called ... said to be a Brexit election when the mandate was already won ... actually an arrogant attempt to grab a landslide ... manifesto concocted by tiny group of Downing Street staff, and not discussed with the cabinet ... the appeal to “strong and stable leadership” a complete failure to speak to urban Britain ... no sense of national mission but, instead, a negative and pessimistic campaign ... the dementia tax debacle, and very weak social policy generally ... little concentration on the post-Brexit economic success story ... the PMs uncertainty in answering questions from the media and her refusal to attend the leaders’ debate ...


9

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:36 | #

Labour guests all over both BBC and ITV election specials.  Scarcely a Tory in sight.  Are they already away plotting?  Theresa May is being spoken of as being too damaged to survive, even if the party hangs on to a majority.


10

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:44 | #

Justine Greening holds on to her Putney seat, but the swing to Labour was 10%.

What seems to be happening is that the votes of UKIP (down 12%) is splitting evenly between Labour and the Tories, when the automatic assumption was that it would heavily break for the latter.  The respective 1% losses in the LibDem and Green votes are going to Labour ... and that, plus the youth vote, is the difference.


11

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 20:19 | #

So, to what extent is Brexit damaged by this debacle?  That depends on the nature of the House of Commons, when it re-convenes.  The likelihood is that the majority of MPs will support remaining in the Single Market, and will not concern themselves about the freedom of movement which goes along with it, which Leavers had assumed was off the table.  Last June’s great victory is at the mercy of the internationalist sharks once again.

The one silver lining is that the Labour Party manifesto promised that a Labour government would leave the EU and the Single Market.  So the party would have to break its own manifesto promises to vote against the May government’s interpretation of the Referendum result.


12

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 20:45 | #

One third of the results in, and ITV are now forecasting on the basis of these results, that the Tories will finish the night with 322 seats, Labour 265, LibDems 10, SNP 31, Others 22.


13

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 20:47 | #

Nick Clegg has lost to Labour in Sheffield Hallam.


14

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 21:11 | #

Another probable casualty of this result will be the boundary reforms which the Tories have been sitting on since the 2010 election, and which, in redistributing wards to equalise constituency sizes while reducing the total number of constituencies to 600, could have advantaged the Tory parliamentary party by 40 seats.

This was doubly important to the party because demographically the electorate is, with time, becoming browner and younger, and less conservative.


15

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 21:36 | #

Paul Nuttall wins only 3,308 votes in Boston and Skegness. The Tory winner weighed in with 27,271 votes.


16

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Jun 2017 21:56 | #

This astonishing night, expected by not a single pundit anywhere, ends with certainty that the Tories will win 320 seats, and will need the support of the unionist parties to govern.  Theresa May’s leadership will not extend beyond the period necessary for the parliamentary party to elect a new leader.  The candidates being spoken of this morning are familiar: Boris Johnson, David Davis; the latter perhaps the favourite for his safe pair of hands.  Jeremy Corbin is now safe as Labour leader.  Nicola Sturgeon’s position is in some doubt.  UKIP will have to find its mission in life.  Nigel Farage, when interviewed earlier, had little doubt that it will.


17

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:23 | #

One take on the election results -


  “Indian Givers”

UKIP / the banker class…

“gave you Brexit” then dissolved themselves into Labour to take away Theresa May’s power to do anything about it..

 


18

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 02:21 | #

  GW,  Apropos England only, does the Tory party have the majority of seats ?


19

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 02:27 | #

Labour was clever.  It bought off Brexit voters by promising to deliver the full version, so neutralising the issue.  It bought off young voters by offering to cancel student debt and abolish it completely for new university students.  That latter promise is worth £27,000 to 50% of all eighteen year olds.  There is no money to do it.  But who’s going to turn that down.

The Tory campaign started off with the single meme of “strong and stable”, which dissolved with the “dementia tax” debacle.  As campaign issues, Brexit (a Tory strength), the economy (a Tory strength), immigration (a Tory strength), security from terrorism (a Tory strength) were not pressed home.  There was next to no debate about any of them.

The most precious asset that May had was her initial image of standing apart from the Establishment.  A good deal of that was tied up with Brexit.  She and her tight group of Downing Street advisors - who wrote the manifesto and whose careers are also now over - did absolutely nothing to nurture this.  On the contrary, with the “strong and stable” focus, they allowed an ageing Trot and a bunch of multiculti fanatics to appear as attractive rebels.  Then with the “dementia tax” and the promise of no tax increases for top-tax payers they pointed their own fingers at themselves as the part of the cruel and the rich, and ensured that Brexit-voting older people would have a reason not to support them.

Somehow a 20 point poll lead evaporated in six weeks.  It is completely unprecedented in British electoral history.  It is testament to the consequences of a complete failure of political analysis.  But then, YouGov aside, the poll companies all called the election wildly wrong, and if you think you’ve got it totally in the bag would you spend that long wondering how to win?


20

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 02:43 | #

The Tory party does have the majority of seats in England, surely, GW ? I’m serious , this is not a rhetorical question.


21

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 02:49 | #

Al, they won 13 seats north of the border and 8 in Wales.  With four safe seats to count they have won 291 English seats out of a total of 532, if my arithmetic is right.


22

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:05 | #

Other errors:

1. Theresa’s Downing Street clique did not carry her Cabinet with them on the Manifesto and campaign.  So the party’s big-hitters were strangely quiet.  Boris Johnson, who is the most widely recognised and popular MP in the country, was more or less excluded from campaigning.

2. The opportunity to unite the country behind an inspiring sense of national mission was completely lost to pettyfogging and rigidity, except on social care for the ageing, which was going to take everyone’s house away - the one declared policy!

3. The constituency of JAMs (the just about managing majority), which exists and which was waiting for concrete policies relevant to it, was given precisely nothing.

4. The continuation of austerity, via the tiresome and unimaginative Philip Hammond as Chancellor.  The electorate has had it with high taxation and spending cuts while the London rich are living like gods.  It was this that probably drove the urban UKIP voters of 2015 back to their old Labour habits.


23

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:09 | #

Thank you, GW.  I was hoping for England to have sufficient Tory traction to win on a stand - alone basis and let the other UK areas do their worst.

Conservatism is a rear guard action for me these days . As a friend from Texas said to me , “Hell, when it’s all you got it ain’t too bad.”


24

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:20 | #

One of the longer-term aims for political analysts will be to work out how the old tribalism meshes with the wild uncertainties of these non-ideological times.  Is the return to the old Labour and Tory electoral landscapes real?  There are signs that the Labour analysts have already concluded that it is, but I am not so sure.  I suspect that it is an accident of the campaign, and the reality is that we are in a non-ideological age - except for the single ideological belief that the Establishment is corrupt and fiscally authoritarian.

The Tory Party has demonstrated that it cannot reform to address this, because it is, ultimately, the business party.  That is where the money to exist comes from.  That is why, for example, the Foreign Aid budget is ring-fenced at such a high level - it is, in no small measure, a slush-fund for Tory-donors flogging arms and construction contracts to Third World despots.  The reality that the Establishment is neo-Marxist and immigrationist as well as neoliberal and globalist cannot, therefore, be spoken of from the Tory right.

In other words, we are lacking an intellectually serious nationalist party.


25

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:29 | #

So what I am saying is that Corbyn’s Trotskyism is not some exciting new election winner from the left.  The electorate wants to earn decent money and keep it, and it isn’t selfishness - it’s real outrage that what should be a good life is increasingly not good.  Increasingly, it’s hardship in relative historical terms - people over forty who have never owned their own homes, for example.  The globalistic, central bank driven sucking up of wealth to the top has eviscerated the sense of connection to the decision makers.  Immigration has destroyed social capital.  Nobody is interested, and nobody can afford to be interested.  “They the politicians have got to listen ... “Trotskyism?  What the fuck, I’ll vote for anything but I won’t vote for more of the same.”

This is the nature of the beast.  It is becoming ripe for nationalist thinking, and we have none!


26

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:45 | #

This is the nature of the beast.  It is becoming ripe for nationalist thinking, and we have none!

...because a concept of left ethnonationalism, which would bring social concern and accountability to native adherents into the picture is skillfully vilified as “the problem”... as “THE left” ... by YKW marketing and their complicit right wing sell-out functionaries.


27

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:57 | #

David, my last post was interdicted by the Polish import.
This sort of thing would not happen in Lewes, what? But ,as they say in your esteemed profession, it’s a big world out there and it all has to be accounted for, but there’s no accounting for taste.


28

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 04:09 | #

Daniel, no one is going to vote for “the white left”.  You are inflating an analytic tool to the status of a political platform.  In the blood lands of the mother continent nationalism does not speak of itself in the terminologies of liberalism.

You could, if you wished, usefully busy yourself with extending the intellectual range and utility of your analytic tool.  Trying to transform it into some grand political panacea will only cause the rolling of eyes.  In short, it is not and will never be politically acceptable to nationalists to call themselves leftists, white or otherwise.  Full stop.


29

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:09 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 04:09 | #

Daniel, no one is going to vote for “the white left”.

Not functioning within the received Jewish framework of the narrative that you insist upon acting into at their convenience it won’t - full stop, that is why it is a metapolitical (philosophical) reworking, full stop. It is not ready for regular political action now because dead theoretical weight is in the way.

You are inflating an analytic tool to the status of a political platform.

No I am not, I am putting it across as a metapolitical framework despite the fact that you don’t like because it runs against your autobigoraphy.

In the blood lands of the mother continent nationalism does not speak of itself in the terminologies of liberalism.

For the millionth fucking time, it is not liberalism, it is the opposite of liberalism.

You could, if you wished, usefully busy yourself with extending the intellectual range and utility of your analytic tool. 

Trying to transform it into some grand political panacea will only cause the rolling of eyes.

You are the one rolling your eyes at it, GW, anything to not see that it functions to organize.

In short, it is not and will never be politically acceptable to nationalists to call themselves leftists, white or otherwise.  Full stop.

You are totally wrong, and if the example of National Socialism needs to hit you in the face in order to make that point, so be it.


30

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:27 | #

Yes, it’s a good idea to co-opt the term left to our expedience, as in left nationalism.

By the way, I watched that dumb fucking Millennial Woes video about the London Bridge attack.

That is what happens when you use a psychological perspective - the guy wants to say that “we are degenerate” and should confess as much to Muslims. “This is why this is all happening, because we have degenerate psychology.” Let him speak for his goddamn self. Are you kidding me? Let him speak for his goddamn self.

I mean, GW, just becuase he looks at our stuff and tries to cobble together and co-opt our talk of emergence with talk of social rule structures does not make him the source of great insight. Far from it.


31

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:30 | #

Theres May is at the palace, asking to form a minority government with DUP backing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/09/general-election-results-theresa-may-talks-dup-coalition/

Tory sources have told The Telegraph that Mrs May will stay on as Prime Minister because she does not want to allow Brussels to delay Brexit talks.

One source said: “The digging in seems to have something to do with their not wanting to allow Brussels to postpone the Brexit talks on the claimed pretence that ‘there isn’t a UK Government’.”

I can believe that.  Article 50 is triggered.  The clock is running.  But the limping mein of any minority government is a constant invitation to malcontents to bring the whole thing down, and then there is the grim reaper and the occasional tabloid sex scandal to negotiate.  It is pretty well inconceivable that it will last a full five-year term.  Election-planning ... proper election-planning ... will have to begin very soon.  That means the economics has to change.  Austerity has to go.  Hammond must be moved.  Carney at the BoE is non-ideal.


32

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:32 | #

UKIP are leaderless again.


33

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:39 | #

Meanwhile in Hackney North and Stoke Newington the shamed, useless Dianne Abbott put 12.2% on her vote, finding 42,265 deracinated natives and foreigners to completely miss all the headlines about her.

Just as ridiculous, in Thanet South Craig MacKinlay scored his second win with 25,000 voters not noticing that he is in court next month.


34

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:51 | #

As a matter of fact, the moment one does nationalism and adheres to it, they are doing Left Nationalism.

It is a matter of social rule structures and of profound importance for the matter of accountability - these social matters can and should be discussed.

Whereas the “ontology project” and “emergence” are things that can and should happen once the way is clear without much in the way of words: in other words, GW, you have it backwards. You want to talk where there should not be much talk, and to prohibit discussion on the matters of greatest agentive bearing.


35

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:13 | #

Daniel, you are imposing on “left” your own interpretation, which literally no one else shares; and it is an interpretation (unionisation) that does not apply among ethnically defined peoples.  For some reason you can’t see this.  But every nationalist on this side of the Atlantic identifies ethnically.  “I am English” ... “I am French” ... “I am German” ... “I am Polish”.  It doesn’t take a particularly close examination of this declaration to see that it is a revelation of what is, not a process of forming what is.  Getting behind a political party advocating the natural rights and interests of “what is” is an expression of that revelation and its rights and interests, not a formation of it and them.  If, as is the case in America, you must look for a bond at a wider level, then your scheme might have some utility, although I still think it is a pretty thankless task to try to convince a “right-wing” identititarian that the left isn’t really left at all but something else, and “right-wing” identity is actually the left.

In all cases, we are talking about the self here ... that “what is” ... and perception thereof.  The identitarian conundrum is: How does an identity that is covered over and forgotten realise its political agency?  And the answer ... the real, true answer ... is that self realisation is agency.


36

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:19 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:13 | #

Daniel, you are imposing on “left” your own interpretation,

No I am not, I am observing that it fits descriptively and functions strategically as well.

It is something which most everyone is doing through ordinary language. I will sort through the rest of your bullshit later.

 

 


37

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:27 | #

I am observing that it fits descriptively and functions strategically as well.

It is a tool.  It would not be of much use if it had no use, would it?

It is something which most everyone is doing through ordinary language.

It is because “most everyone is doing through ordinary language” that “the terminologies” constitute a barrier to your progress.  You are trying to change the settled meaning of the terminology, and it cannot succeed.

I will sort through the rest of your bullshit later.

There is no need.  And what you call bullshit is good, simple, philosophy.


38

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:38 | #

If you put the word “left” and “nationalism” together, is that not nationalism? of course it is and it does not become not nationalism because you say so or because it hurts your feelings as the savior of right wing assholes from their stupidity - which is abundantly clear now that you cannot do.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:13 | #

Daniel, you are imposing on “left” your own interpretation, which literally no one else shares;

No I am not, I am observing that it fits descriptively and functions strategically as well.

It is something which most everyone is doing through ordinary language. And now I will deal with the rest of your bullshit.

and it is an interpretation (unionisation) that does not apply among ethnically defined peoples.

Of course it can apply, it is the essence of a concept of the left. Just because you don’t want it to apply because it does not flatter your autobiography as its progenitor does not mean it cannot apply - it absolutely can.

For some reason you can’t see this.

For some reason, you can’t see this: a passport is quite analogous to a union card.

But every nationalist on this side of the Atlantic identifies ethnically.

Fine and dandy, so do I. So does the concept of left ethno-nationalism, but without the naivete and disingenuousness that would deny the means of accountability that the proponents of the right would do.

“I am English” ... “I am French” ... “I am German” ... “I am Polish”.  It doesn’t take a particularly close examination of this declaration to see that it is a revelation of what is, not a process of forming what is.

The false either/or is yours, not mine.

Getting behind a political party advocating the natural rights and interests of “what is” is an expression of that revelation and its rights and interests, not a formation of it and them.

That might be one of the most literal expressions of going back to the kind of obsolete Enlightenment perfidy that Jefferson wrote into the Constitution and left us susceptible in the first place.

If, as is the case in America, you must look for a bond at a wider level, then your scheme might have some utility,

My scheme has utility cross contextually, your ignoring what I say does not change that fact.

although I still think it is a pretty thankless task to try to convince a “right-wing” identititarian that the left isn’t really left at all but something else, and “right-wing” identity is actually the left.

You are thankless it’s true, because your ego is in the way, so fat that you can’t see around it. But it really isn’t hard. Because it is Jews and right wingers who are in the way. The latter, the right wing, are either disingenuous, i.e., not really concerned nationally, i.e., socially for their people, or they are naive, having been hoodwinked into accepting ineffectual tools for nationalism.

In the case of the Jews, well, they want you and the alt right to keep arguing the way that you are arguing, against “the left” and to not make hyphenated associations: left nationalism, White left ...at least not if its going to exclude them (which it must).

In all cases, we are talking about the self here ...

Ridiculous.

that “what is” ... and perception thereof.

It’s almost hard to believe how Lockeatine that you are, but apparently you are. Obsolete.

The identitarian conundrum is: How does an identity that is covered over and forgotten realise its political agency?  And the answer ... the real, true answer ... is that self realisation is agency.

Wrong. Too solipsistic.


39

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:44 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:27 | #

  I am observing that it fits descriptively and functions strategically as well.

It is a tool.  It would not be of much use if it had no use, would it?

  It is something which most everyone is doing through ordinary language.

It is because “most everyone is doing through ordinary language” that “the terminologies” constitute a barrier to your progress.

You are a barrier here, but my concept cuts though your nonsense and others like a hot knife through butter, you just can’t accept that.

You are trying to change the settled meaning of the terminology, and it cannot succeed.

It is not settled at all: you want it to be because you’ve settled on an autobiography as champion against “the left.” ..and don’t want to face the fact that you’ve been suckered.

  I will sort through the rest of your bullshit later.

There is no need.  And what you call bullshit is good, simple, philosophy.

I already did it, above. Heidegger has a pithy answer for you: “Common sense is the refrain of the intellectually jealous.”

GW, your philosophy isn’t good, and trying to apply a wrecking ball to clear ideas is not parsimony.


40

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:45 | #

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-latest-theresa-may-special-advisers-sacked-calls-tory-mp-sarah-wollaston-results-a7781496.html

Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston has called for Theresa May’s special advisers to be sacked following the party’s failure to achieve a majority in the general election.

The Prime Minister’s joint chiefs of staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hall, were widely seen as the masterminds of a lacklustre election campaign that saw 20-point poll leads for the Conservatives evaporate and the failure to achieve a Tory majority in the Commons.

While some Conservatives have started briefing privately against them, Dr Wollaston, re-elected as MP for Totnes in Devon, tweeted her feelings about their continued employment.

“I cannot see how the inner circle of special advisers can continue in post. Needs to be far more inclusive in future,” she wrote.

She criticised several aspects of the Conservative campaign, from special policies like the ‘dementia tax’ to the aggressive tone adopted by some in her party.

“Overall I’m very concerned about consequences of a hung Parliament and what this means for the future and crucial negotiations with the EU,” Dr Wollaston tweeted.

“[Ms May’s support for] fox hunting and changes to social care were turning points in how people felt about the Prime Minister in highly personalised campaign.

“Hope we never again have such a negative campaign. The public just don’t want US-style attack politics.”


41

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 06:51 | #

Did I say YouGov called it right.  Guido reminds us that it was Survation:

https://order-order.com/2017/06/09/survation-mocked-correct-prediction/

On Thursday everyone smiled when all the pollsters herded around a 7% lead for the Tories. Everyone but pollsters Survation who alone stuck with their call for no overall control. They all laughed, but Damian Lyons Lowe was absolutely right…


42

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 07:05 | #

One more result I have found:

Zac Goldsmith defeated the sitting LibDem MP Sarah Olney (who, in turn, had unseated him in a by-election last year triggered unnecessarily by Goldsmith).  But it was mighty close.  Goldsmith received 28,588 votes, which was 45.14% of the total.  Olney received 28543 votes, or 45.07%.

45 votes in it!


43

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 08:32 | #

The UKIP defection to Labour is probably the single most important thing to come take note of. What basically has happened here, is that the ‘counterjihadist’ and city JAM nationalist right spent almost all of its political capital and its online messaging bandwidth on attacking Theresa May repeatedly, because the autism of neverending rebellion prevented those persons from strategising about their own future.

This means that Theresa May’s Team is forced to enter a supply-based informal coalition with the absolutely retrogressive and repugnant DUP in order to govern, which will result in tarnishing the fresh and progressive brand that the Tory party had spent years building up so as to prevent young people from jumping into the hands of the Labour party at the Guardian newspaper’s insistence. But whatever, I guess.

It also makes the government look weak, which will trigger ‘the march of the Remainers’, through various MPs, lobbyists, and financiers, who will now interpret this as a chance to agitate against ‘hard Brexit’ with every argument they have. It also emboldens the continental Europeans, who, seeing this result, will know that anything that Theresa’s May’s Team negotiates with them, can be immediately challenged and pulled to pieces by emboldened fifth columnists within the House of Commons.

Over the coming days and weeks, we’ll hear average people blaming Theresa May’s Team for not being charismatic enough, despite the fact that if those same average people were capable of making that criticism, then surely that would in itself mean that they didn’t need the showboat of charisma in the first place, meaning that these average people actually have no excuse for what they’ve done. They just wanted to feel special among their peer groups by being that edgy snowflake who was just too cool to support the May-Rudd 1984-style lockdown (le gasp) because freedom, or a hijab being worn by a person in a photograph on Facebook dot com with some unsourced text under it, or some general tendency toward letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. But most importantly, edgy snowflakes of all variants.

There is also the element of welfarism. People who voted Brexit from the socio-economic groups C and D apparently have such a short time preference that they could not even wait five years to begin agitating for their welfare and services. Looking at the graph of the pledges, it seems that there were only minor differences in spending levels on social services between Tories and Labour, but these people were nevertheless willing to risk destroying Brexit so as to try to get Jeremy’s spending levels rather than Theresa’s.

The conclusion: Defeat has been snatched out of the jaws of victory. This country is basically ruined now. Seriously, what is even the point? As it turns out, it wasn’t the government that was the problem. The people are the problem. Populist politics is a complete wash, and everyone who tries to play with populist politics will inevitably get punished for it, by the same swivel-eyed populists. That’s also what ruling classes around the world must be learning this afternoon. British populism had delivered Brexit as a referendum result, but British populists could not remain focussed for long enough to actually arm the government with a means to deliver Brexit properly, as has been seen today. The logical assessment that any cynical analyst will now make is that socioeconomic groups C and D are too retarded for these kinds of multi-step decisions and that perhaps David Cameron should have just contemptuously refused to have a referendum in the first place. Or as a friend of mine put it last night, “Wow, fuck democracy after all.”


44

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 09:09 | #

Kumiko,

I agree with the “Remain fifth column” commentary.  The Remainers have already demonstrated an enduring desire to subvert democracy.  That will continue with new vigour now.

That said, nobody knows what the precise make-up of the new HoC will be, Brexit-wise.

I am not blaming the electorate for last night’s debacle. People feel impoverished, and May wouldn’t talk economics.  They believed what Labour told them.  Human beings are suggestible creatures.  Labour suggested to great effect.  They won the policy campaign.  They won the getting out of the vote.  They won the tactical battle - one of their unsung successes last night was the so-called Progressive Alliance that cleared away many a Green and LibDem opponent to a Labour candidate in with a chance of beating the Tory.

It is likely that Farage will return to leadership of UKIP in order to campaign for a real Brexit.  I hope he does, because the spirit of June 2016 won’t be resuscitated by anyone else.  But, at heart and notwithstanding his ideas about appealing to Labour voters, Farage is a petty Tory, and he won’t allow the movement to develop into a mature, broad-based party of dissent, which is very obviously what we lack and what we need.


45

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 10:00 | #

Well, I’ve lost faith in the British people and I can’t imagine it coming back soon or even ever. I see lots of actually quite well-off people making noises about economic issues that in my view they shouldn’t even have been complaining about, at least not now.

If they think it’s bad now, wait until they see what happens next. A failed Brexit will mean a failed economy, and at the next election the SNP will be wiped out in Scotland and the Tories (who will be blamed for not delivering on Brexit because of course) will also be wiped out in Scotland. At that point Labour will have enough seats to form a majority and then they will set about ending the country.

I went over to Morgoth’s Review to spar with them as I tend to do, and they of course believe that all of this is absolutely fine, because they are enthusiastic about seeing the DUP in coalition with the Tories. Why? Because they like the conservative values that the DUP has. At this point it’s just like “I give up.” They cannot even see that the mere presence of the DUP in coalition with Tories, is going to be one of the factors that will contribute to future Labour victories, and it’s a Labour party where Diane Abbot would be Home Secretary.

Frankly I refuse to live in this country if that happens.


46

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 11:24 | #

Guido lists 12 DUP policies he thinks are actually an improvement on the Tories’:

https://order-order.com/2017/06/09/__trashed-14/

To reduce the rate of Corporation Tax to at least 12.5%;
To freeze then cut or abolish the TV licence and reform the BBC;
To cut the VAT rate for tourism businesses;
To introduce a Trade Accelerator Plan including an enhanced range of initiatives to help support both new and existing exporters to explore new markets;
To abolish Air Passenger Duty;
To establish low tax, deregulated Freeports in economically underdeveloped parts of the UK
To reduce the number of Government Departments and reduce the number of Special Advisors;
To introduce a Civil Service Voluntary Exit Scheme yielding annual savings of approximately £100 million;
To create new trade, investment and innovation hubs in key global markets;
To introduce alternative models of public sector service delivery such as increasing the use of social enterprises.

Presumably, Kumiko, it’s the DUP’s slightly religiously-tinged social conservatism you abhor, yes?

Ruth Davidson certainly doesn’t like them, because she values homosexualism above the evolutionary good of her ethnic group (of which she doubtless has no concept):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/09/ruth-davidson-distances-dup-deal-tweeting-link-gay-pride-lecture/

 


47

Posted by anon on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:03 | #

It was this that probably drove the urban UKIP voters of 2015 back to their old Labour habits.

everyone is saying this but i don’t believe it.

i think they stayed home while the dementia tax brought out lots of older, generally apolitical people to vote against May to save their house for their kids

This is the nature of the beast.  It is becoming ripe for nationalist thinking

yes, the center is crumbling

and we have none!

it will come from the alt-right in the US imo

 


48

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:12 | #

  and we have none!

it will come from the alt-right in the US imo

The (((Alt-Right))) of the US is Jewish created, instigated and steered reaction.

But then, why don’t you attend a lecture of Greg Johnson and (((Mike Enoch))) in Stockholm this coming July 1 and let them tell you directly what Zionism would allow for?


49

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:15 | #

it will come from the alt-right in the US imo

From Alt-Right Jews, Alt-Right crypto-Jews, or Alt-Right non-Jews following Alt-Right Jews and crypto-Jews?  How about we look to our own kind for once?


50

Posted by anon on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:20 | #

How about we look to our own kind for once?

sure - after we go back in time and insert a first amendment

(which was inserted by our own kind in a different place)

 


51

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:24 | #

Posted by anon on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:20 | #

  How about we look to our own kind for once?

sure - after we go back in time and insert a first amendment

(which was inserted by our own kind in a different place)

Sure, the Jewish proponent is going to tell us to get back to the constitution, to Locke’s pure empirical, Cartesian rights ... then he rubs his hands together.


52

Posted by anon on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:26 | #

Daniel S

The (((Alt-Right))) of the US is Jewish created, instigated and steered reaction.

I know where the alt-right came from and it wasn’t created by anybody. “Steered” since its inception, maybe - all opposition to the banking mafia is controlled opposition eventually but as long as you keep moving the ground the controlled opposition has to keep moving with it to maintain control - so none o dis matters, just keep moving the ground and the controlled opposition ends up where you wanted to be.

 


53

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:47 | #

Posted by anon on Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:26 | #

Daniel S

  The (((Alt-Right))) of the US is Jewish created, instigated and steered reaction.

I know where the alt-right came from and it wasn’t created by anybody.

Either you don’t know where it came from, or you’re doing the steering. Most likely, the former.

“Steered” since its inception, maybe - all opposition to the banking mafia is controlled opposition eventually but as long as you keep moving the ground the controlled opposition has to keep moving with it to maintain control - so none o dis matters, just keep moving the ground and the controlled opposition ends up where you wanted to be.

As I said, you don’t know where it came from and how it operates, and you demonstrate the inherent instability of its reactionary objectivism - it ends up where Jews and those who shake their hands want it to be.


54

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 03:59 | #

Peter Kellner: “How the pollsters got it wrong”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-polls-how-the-pollsters-got-it-wrong-a3560936.html


55

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 05:55 | #

Yes, the whole social conservative DUP thing is not appealing to me. Also, the fact that Prince Muhammad bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud has the capacity now to transmit commands directly through the DUP, and the DUP can threaten to bring down the government at any time, means that the United Kingdom has now lost the ability to give Saudi Arabia any pushback on anything going forward. So if you know any Saudis, you’ll notice that they are in a strangely good mood about these events—that is why they’re happy.

There’s also now an article behind the paywall at the Financial Times, which contains the following paragraph:

Financial Times, ‘May clings to power as Tories threaten to split over Brexit’, 10 Jun 2017 (emphasis added):

The hung parliament has thrown the already-fraught Brexit process into question, with one minister saying that Mrs May will now find it impossible to push through a mountain of legislation needed to smooth Britain’s exit. “In practical terms, Brexit is dead,” the minister said.

Pro-EU Conservatives seized on Mrs May’s weakness to argue that she must now pursue a business-friendly “soft Brexit” which would keep Britain in the EU’s common market and customs union.

It’s just going to be losing in slow-motion from here on out. Five years from now, is the exact time when the migrant reunification and EU-citizenship-granting wave that Angela Merkel has been incubating, will finally explode all across Europe. They’ll be able to enter Britain because by then there still will not have actually been a full Brexit. And a massive number of them will want to access Britain if it’s still inside the EU free movement regime by that time.

Basically, the government tried heroically to get across the simple message that the Tory Party needed to be given a strong hand in Brexit negotiations because it’s extremely important, but at the end of the day average White British people thought that arguing over the concept of a ‘dementia tax’, getting ‘free tuition’, and purity-spiralling with Tommy Robinson, were more important than ACTUALLY SURVIVING, so who am I to tell them otherwise?

I did what I could. I was eligible to vote back in the referendum, and I voted Leave. I encouraged lots of other people to do the same. At the general election that just happened, I voted for the candidate representing Theresa May’s Team in the constituency I live in. I encouraged lots of other people in my social circle to do the same. I did what I ought to have done as a responsible so-called ‘guest’ in another people’s civilisation when faced with these questions.

I’ll be emigrating from here at some time between now and the next election in five years, probably to New Zealand since everything I do is entirely transferable anyway. I’d just need to start making preparations for it now so that it can be done smoothly, since I can’t just instantly pick up and leave on Monday. Basically, I’m done with Britain. It’s sad! It seems that a lot of people are thinking the same way, because there has been a sharp uptick in the number of people I’m seeing talking about Oceania and whether it would be a good idea to go there.


56

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 07:35 | #

I also see that everywhere, people are trying to find ways to blame someone other than the average White British people from socioeconomic groups C and D themselves for this outcome. Everyone wants a nice explanation that will allow them to escape from the depressing reality.

I’ll address each of the most popular excuses I’ve been seeing.

1. “Theresa May’s Team didn’t understand the mood for change that existed in the country.”

I think it’s entirely reasonable that they didn’t understand just how irrational the voters really were.

2. “Theresa May didn’t really want to do Brexit, and people sensed this. Where’s my crack pipe?”

This is a UKIP conspiracy theory with no grounding in reality to begin with. Any time you hear this, it probably means you’re talking to some UKIP lunatic, who may have been smoking crack.

3. “Theresa May’s advisors, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, had the wrong strategies and everything is their fault.”

There was really nothing that they could have done that would have convinced the voters that they needed to convince anyway. Hill and Timothy did an admirable job of making sure that pro-Theresa advertisements and messaging were basically coming at you from everywhere, from every angle. They also correctly decided to go with the branding ‘Theresa May’s Team’, which sounds kind of cool like a small tech startup or something, and it enables you to not have to forefront the word ‘Conservatives’. Doing this enabled them to actually net the party a total number of votes for ‘Theresa May’s Team’ that exceeded the number of votes cast for Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ during his landslide election in 1997.

What they did not and could not foresee, was that ex-UKIP voters and the 20% or so of voters that Hope not Hate refers to as ‘latent hostiles’, were not going to do what a rational person would expect them to do in giving Theresa May’s Team their vote. Instead they voted Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.

4. “Sir Lynton Crosby said manifestos don’t matter because no one is reading them! Clearly he was wrong, and everything is his fault!”

In fact, Crosby was proven right because most people did not read any of the manifestos. For example, the number of people prancing around talking about ‘austerity’ and ‘cuts’ were quite high. Those people obviously had not actually placed the Tory and Labour manifestos side by side and compared them on any of the key issues.

The Tory manifesto was very lightweight, because Crosby assumed that hardly anyone was really going to read it. He was right.

5. “Psychopathic attack dog tactics against Jeremy Corbyn had the paradoxical effect of making people feel sorry for him!”

Not buying it. It’s plain stupidity, that’s what it is. Are we supposed to conclude that it’s basically contrarian ‘opposite day’, and that the only way to get the target demography to vote for Theresa May, would have been to have treated Corbyn with love, dignity, and respect?

Absolutely laughable.

6. “People felt that Theresa May lacked empathy.”

This one is the most absurd of all. The idea that the supposed hardnosed and bloody-minded British people who were out for blood, also wanted Theresa May to somehow be their mummy, and that since this was not forthcoming they decided to go and cuddle with ‘Jezza’ Corbyn instead, is so absurd as to be laughable.

And if it is true, then it would again not be Theresa May’s fault. It would not be reasonable to expect that anyone could anticipate that level of actual emotion-driven stupidity from people who live in a highly connected information economy with 99% literacy rates.

7. “They tried to make it about Brexit too much.”

I don’t think anyone could have reasonably anticipated that a bunch of ex-UKIP voters would suddenly decide that they didn’t care about actually being able to deliver Brexit, and that they would vote Labour because they felt like prioritising social services over this next five year period. And even if someone was able to predict that completely absurd prioritisation, there would have been nothing that anyone would’ve been able to do to stop them from voting in that way.

Conclusion

People need to just accept that mental retardation among the electorate played the decisive role in the outcome of Thursday’s general election, particularly among ex-UKIP voters. Darwin has spoken, and that’s all there is to it.

There is, incidentally, no lesson to be learned from any of this. I believe that there is nothing that anyone could have done.


57

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:29 | #

Breaking news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4590818/Ex-No-10-staffer-slams-s-aides-Nick-Fi.html

Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill RESIGN as Theresa May’s top aides after election disaster as PM was urged to sack both of them over ‘toxic’ No 10 operation

Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill have resigned as joint chiefs of staff to Theresa May after the Tory election disaster.

Mr Timothy admitted to a mistake in how he drafted a social care policy for the manifesto seen as a major factor in the electoral setbacks that left Mrs May clinging desperately to power.

But he claimed the wider Tory campaign had failed to spot a surge in Labour support even while the Conservative vote soared to ‘historically high’ levels.

Both issued statements defending Mrs May today after a former No 10 aide today revealed a ‘toxic’ atmosphere in Downing Street.

Mrs May had been under pressure to fire both of her top advisers in the aftermath of the shock losses which wiped out the Conservative majority in Parliament.

The resignations could help hold off a challenge to Mrs May’s Tory leadership. The PM is reshuffling her Cabinet today as she tries to shore up her position.

 

 


58

Posted by Dr_Eigenvector on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 09:18 | #

It’s no great surprise that Cs and Ds voted for whoever promised them the most goodies, Kumiko. The difference being that they are our Cs and Ds and we love them regardless. We don’t turn on them with anger and spite and mock them with our A and B foreign pals (who’ve done extremely well out of the UK yet can jump ship the moment they choose). Leave if you want to. That’s one new opportunity opened up for a stout Englishman. On that basis you can all get lost. But tae f*ck are you moving elsewhere within the Anglosphere you damn hypocrite. Go back to Japan.

And f*****g stay there.


59

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:01 | #

Yeah, go fuck yourself, Dr Eigenvector. I can travel to wherever I want to go with or without your approval. If I want to go to New Zealand, then to New Zealand I am going. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s me doing whatever the fuck I want to do with my life. Do not ever imagine that you can tell me what to do.

Why don’t you go and cuddle with your buddy Morgoth and his band of insane misogynistic conspiracy theorists over at Morgoth’s Review, and stop poking your nose in over here where it’s not wanted?


60

Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 12:33 | #

@45.

We are entering a period of great uncertainty, the herd at last is becoming   restive.  Hardly had the Brexit result been declared when a chorus of remainers made it clear they would not accept it.  Powerful factions have since given further voice, they have no intentions of accepting the democratic process.

We are entering the final phase of democracy, Globalism is poised to fill the vacuum.  I was convinced no matter what the Brexit result, it would never be accepted, let alone implimented, and in the coming months the realisation by our people of David Icke was right will come home to them.

I conintue to be astonished that millions of level headed folk turn out to vote with idea they’re making a difference.  What’s the bloody point if both sides are owned by the same people as ever.

What manifestation of this slow death of democracy will take will only be become apparent as converging strands become history.

Britain is disintegrating as I type, whatever prime minister emerges from this last few months happenings, the defining of British shared values will remain as elusive as ever, no matter which British community will be chosen from the hundreds to choose from. 


61

Posted by Dr_Eigenvector on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 12:59 | #

I wouldn’t want to live around Gooks either, love. Soulless automatons.

No, I’d prefer the infinitely superior Angloshere too. My land. My people. I will never abandon or betray them.

Unlike some…


62

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:00 | #

Doc,

I am sorry to see this strife.  It is unnecessary.  Kumiko has much the same opinion of Morgoth’s site, as it is today, as you appear to.  On the fact of her Japanese ethnicity I might add that if there were a few million Kumikos in this land in place of the Africans and Muslims we would get to where we have to rather quickly.

I hope you will look beyond this spat and continue to read us and comment here - which I, for one, value.

 


63

Posted by anon on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:33 | #

right about now a lot of Con voters ought to be waking up to the reality that changing the electorate = full on socialist govt.

oops


64

Posted by Dr_Eigenvector on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:46 | #

Absolutely, thanks GW. I’m not part of this argument but for me it reinforces the idea that even our most ardent foreign allies can turn against us at will and return to their homeland (or wherever) because they have another home to go too. We don’t have that luxury. All this talk of White nationalism and Alt Rights and Alt Lites. When push comes to shove, the English will only have each other to rely on for genuine, solid, consistent support.

Everyone else appears to find it perfectly acceptable to kick us again whilst we’re down, or try and find the space to stick yet another knife in our back.

 


65

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:26 | #

Well, to be fair to myself, I never claimed otherwise. I love Britain, but in the case where I believe I’ve done all that I can, and that I’ve always supported Britain in virtually every situation that I’ve been alive to make a decision on, there is a limit to how much I’m willing to take, and if I’m asked to go down with the ship because British people themselves drilled holes in it, then I must decline.

If this were an external threat, or a crisis brought on by some external action from Britain’s enemies, then I’d be the first to say “I want to fight!” But in this case, there is nothing to fight.

The sabotage has come from within, it’s been done through the democratic process for literally no good reason, by the people themselves this time. And if it isn’t fixed by 2019 (and it won’t be) then it’s never going to be fixed within the confines of the system.

To expect me to stay, would be completely unreasonable. My refusal to stay in the country is neither kicking nor knifing. It’s just me leaving. It doesn’t mean I’ve turned against Britain. It just means I am not going to be here for whatever kind of SNAFU that will be going on.


66

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:40 | #

Theresa has replaced Tim and Fi with ousted Croydon Central MP Gavin Barwell, as she rebuilds her “team” to undertake the task of achieving a real Brexit. Croydon is one of the more colonised London boroughs, and the scene of much burning and looting the last time blacks went collectively haywire.

This morning the Express publishes little Gavin’s immediate, and one would expect sincere, reaction to the Referendum decision last June, preserved on his Twitter account:

A bit late to say Vote UKIP, I suppose.


67

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:15 | #

Lesson Time

They’ve now reached the lesson-learning phase of this disaster, so the sullen strategists are now spelling out what they perceive the message to have been from all of this.

Basically the political player perception seems to be this.

Jezza and free beer

Jeremy Corbyn has been able to annihilate the historical Labour Party and has taken it over completely. If the Corbynists were going to defend Corbyn’s leadership position to the death in the event of a washout for them on Thursday, they are going to defend his position even harder now because he has done better than anyone expected him to do. Watering down his cabinet with former Blairites and Brownites is going to be impossible as well, since he’s unfortunately far too intelligent to suddenly say “let bygones be bygones” and let everything revert back to how it was. He’s going to want to just keep the cabinet that he won on.

Mayists were running in the wrong country

Theresa May is not gone yet, but she is definitely finished. What Theresa May tried to accomplish really, was to create a One Nation Conservatism for this era, in which a centralised personality ‘cult’ was to be combined with welfarist social democracy and free trade, cemented together by a cabinet that is run like the inside of the Home Office. This sounds perfectly wonderful to me, but apparently it’ll make you lose elections in Britain forever and ever if you try it! And now there’s proof because someone tried it and lost enormously!

Apparently it’s all ‘impossible for the British public to accept’, and ‘does not focus enough on the economy’ in its rhetoric, because it relies on loving and obeying the leader, which Britons just don’t want to do under any circumstance because trendy-vacuous scepticism levels are too high. By choosing to become Big Sister, and by choosing to abandon the idea of defending austerity, it allowed Labour to take the initiative on talking about the economy, while also allowing Labour to blame Theresa May’s Team for an austerity that the Team actually were not advocating. After all, no reasonable person could claim that taxing the wealthy to pay for social care constitutes ‘austerity’. And no one could look at the Theresa May Team’s infrastructure spending plans or their plan to phase out internal combustion engines by 2050, as ‘austerity’. Yet the British public does not care, and secretly, if Theresa May had copied David Cameron and supported hard austerity and then strongly defended that as a ‘strong and stable economy’, rather than simply calling herself ‘strong and stable’ as a person, she might have been able to gish gallop over the Corbynists.

British people actually wanted to be beaten senseless by Osborne, they just didn’t know how to express that urge

Yes, paradoxically, giving them the kind of austere punishments that they claimed to be afraid of, might have yielded better results than trying to please them. That’s the lesson many are taking.

In Brexit, the ‘consensus’ among ‘smart people’ seems to be that the vote against Theresa May’s Team was not only a repudiation of the welfarist One Nation Conservatism, but is also a repudiation of ‘hard Brexit’, also known as ‘real Brexit’. Therefore, ‘soft Brexit’ is what they are going to angle for, a Brexit in which Britain will be functionally part of the EU on everything from harmonisation of standards, migration and freedom of movement, and trade, but unable to actually affect the legislation that is being passed therein.

In a sense, ‘soft Brexit’ is actually worse than just cancelling Brexit altogether. Yet cancelling Brexit outright is unlikely to be something that anyone would have the political capital to do, and ‘hard Brexit’ is not politically tenable because it is believed that the electorate intended to repudiate ‘hard Brexit’.

So what do we have?

The concept of ‘Theresa May’s Team’ is being dropped. Communications will now just call it ‘the Conservative Party’ again. The One Nation stuff will also be dropped, and all the attempts to position the Conservative Party as a kind of ‘left conservatism’ will be dropped, because clearly it hasn’t worked. People who were in the Mayist centralised group will of course be sidelined or induced to resign. There may be a deputy prime minister from a different faction assigned that will watch over Theresa’s shoulder, as they do not have anyone that can replace her yet, but they are desperate to remove her at the earliest opportunity.

If I were to describe it in a single sentence, I would say that the Tory establishment have ‘learned’ from this total disaster, that they might as well just become George Osborne.

It’s not a conspiracy of any sort, it’s simply a rational, albeit disappointing, institutional response to a crisis. They tried to basically turn the country into South Korea and shut down all dissenters once and for all, they asked for a mandate to do that and were told incoherently to fuck off by white voters from socioeconomic groups C and D, so now they’re going to revert back to muddling through with the reheated ideas of the Notting Hill group.

One way of putting it is that trying to be nice, or even interesting, has resulted in complete annihilation at the hands of the electorate, so they might as well just be boring and disgusting instead.

Worst case projection

My projection is that that Theresa May will limp on for a while, and if she actually makes it to the table then they’ll want her to negotiate ‘soft Brexit’. After that, they’ll remove her in a leadership challenge and non-ironically try to replace her with George Osborne or someone who thinks just like him. You might even see David Davis presenting Osborne-style economic packages! The European Union will then become obstructionist and this will have the effect of triggering a general election again. Osborne or Davis-cosplaying-as-Osborne will then run against Corbyn and it will be hard insane austerity versus equally insane unlimited public spending. In both cases migration of ‘refugees’ will be massively increased as they are ‘vital’ to the economy supposedly, in both extreme instances.

Someone in the midst of this will then mutter a terrifying statement I heard earlier, “It seems that the British people looked at mass migration and decided after doing a cost benefit analysis, that the economic gains from mass migration make the risk of being stabbed to death in the street entirely worth it.”

At that stage I’ll be buying a plane ticket. The stuff I wrote at the bottom of the FTAAP article back in March, seems so far away now. It’s like ice cream that melted in the summer sun.


68

Posted by anon on Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:24 | #

Barwell lost in Croydon because the electorate were changed.

His reaction illustrates what’s wrong with the Cons - they aren’t even capable of looking out for their own self-interest let alone anyone else’s.


69

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:27 | #

Sky News is now reporting that cabinet ministers themselves, having come under pressure from lobbyists who’ve turned sides after the disastrous election, are now pressurising Theresa May to go for ‘soft Brexit’. So my prediction is beginning to unfold.

The horror won’t end. It’s all down hill from here.


70

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:32 | #

It is seemingly inexplicable how the electorate took something as precious as Brexit for granted, basically; and showed a strangely insouciant attitude to the whole election process.  It doesn’t make sense - unless one realises that that was only half of what was happening.  I suspect that the other half was a new style demographically focussed campaigning of an intensity never before seen.

The reason I say this is that I witnessed a twitter bomb of different “anti-hate” messages on the same theme (of not associating Muslims with terrorism) ... dozens of them ... hit the feeds of the two attack sites in London last week.  This was programmed action, taking place about three hours after news broke of the London Bridge attack.  Here were people set up with their twitter accounts and all ready for the next outrage; and they did not fail.  The general run of tweeters was blown off the feeds.

The political right is profoundly ignorant of any activism more complex than doorstepping and leafletting.  From all of fifty years ago it allowed the wars of discourse and position ... the culture wars ... to achieve all their goals; and not only did it put up no resistance, it was swept along and committed itself in the style of the captured intellect to driving the revolution forward.  So here we are with Momentum, an activist body holding sway over the Labour Party,  having already produced a party membership 600,000 strong.  It can command numbers.  It can leverage voting power across social platforms.  Surely it will have found ways to execute a common election strategy that the Conservatives won’t even know exist.  To me that sounds inevitable.


71

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:44 | #

Another development, the Queen’s Speech is going to be extremely short compared to the original script on Monday or whenever. Large sections of the Tory manifesto are now going to thrown into the trash, 2010-style. In my view, British people should not be surprised by this, because a hung parliament has historically always liberated whichever social forces had been subjugated by the party structure prior to the election.

The resurgence of Tory remainers will begin now, and the idea of ‘soft Brexit’ will magically and suddenly gain significant support. Some political commentators are predicting (erroneously), that cuts will scaled back. No way, I still maintain—as I said in previous posts—my prediction that cuts will in fact be deepened, because at this point there is no way to hold anyone to account anyway, in a hung parliament the lobbyists can instruct MPs to do anything and those MPs know that in the uncertainty they won’t be held accountable because there is no manifesto anymore.

Human interactions are like an amazing nest of interlocking actions and reactions, relationship matrices, with different psychological states at play, and with different economic incentives, and different instincts flaring, whole institutions pulling against each other in different directions with different amounts of ‘force’, which finally resolves itself in a set of actions. It does take considerable effort, but if I stare into the distance for a while the resultant of a sequence of actions will always appear in front of me.

So if you see even bigger cuts coming down the pipe at the Queen’s speech, then you’ll know I’ve modelled this step correctly and that we can then hop to the next prediction in the chain.


72

Posted by anon on Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:08 | #

It is seemingly inexplicable how the electorate took something as precious as Brexit for granted

I think everyone is underestimating the effect of May’s dementia tax - that’s what led to the big drop in their lead.

The most likely switcher would be a Con remainer worried about their house
- hence Con losing Canterbury but gaining Stoke

I suspect that the other half was a new style demographically focused campaigning of an intensity never before seen.

The reason I say this is that I witnessed a twitter bomb of different “anti-hate” messages on the same theme (of not associating Muslims with terrorism) ... dozens of them ... hit the feeds of the two attack sites in London last week.

Probably a Soros type org magnifying the SJW Red Guard - who are a significant new thing.

party membership 600,000 strong

mostly young Red Guard - in the past they were largely meaningless as they didn’t actually do anything except preen but they are actually active now and dramatically so - i expect major street coercion against May to try and bring down the govt early - the anti-DUP thing is part of that imo - getting them fired up

soros color revolution time

 


73

Posted by Surprisingly, 35 to 44 yr olds went 50% Labour on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:24 | #

The youth vote has been widely credited as playing a crucial role in Labour’s performance in the general election, but a poll has suggested the party took a sizable chunk of the traditional Tory vote from an older generation.

According to the poll conducted by former Conservative donor Lord Michael Ashcroft, 50 per cent of voters aged 35 to 44 opted for Labour, with only 30 per cent of people in this age group voting Conservative.

[...]

Generally, “for every 10 years older a voter is, their chance of voting Tory increases by around 8 per cent, and the chance of them voting Labour decreases by 6 per cent,” the polling company stated.

Source, Independent.


74

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:50 | #

So basically it’s like this.

Baby Boomers: Cucks
Generation X: Cucks
Millennials: Cucks
Generation Z: Probably cucks but there’s no way to know yet

The whole society is cucked.


75

Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 11:07 | #

You spelt the last word wrongly Kumiko. It should begin with “F”.


76

Posted by anon on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:58 | #

The whole society is cucked.

true and the crisis is imminent imo

win or lose it will be a warning to the rest of the biomass.


77

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 26 Jul 2017 07:48 | #

I told you people all this at great length nearly a decade ago here at MR. The White race is maladapted for this particular evolutionary bottleneck. Most politics is an expression of underlying genetics, and this situation is intensifying all the time (due to general literacy and the ease of information gathering via the internet). In the 80s and well into the 90s, I believed that Whites would awaken if only they could have access to racial and genetic truth, which, however, the Jewish-controlled media rigorously suppressed. I was finally disabused of this notion by Le Pen pere’s massive defeat in 2002 - probably the most personally depressing election of my life. If an ancient ethnonation like France could only muster not quite 20% of the vote for national survival, when they had no indigenous nonwhites (as we Americans have) and thus could see and measure the horrors nonwhite ‘diversity’ was inflicting upon them, clearly we must be dealing with a genetic and not merely propagandistic problem.

My conclusion? White Zion remains the only reasonable answer (“unreasonably”, Whites might start acting in their own self-interest when their children’s lives are literally being threatened by muds - but we’re trying to awaken our people so as to avoid these horrors, right?)—> territorial ingathering of White Preservationists within a sovereign, demographically conquerable country, a place where we can become the electoral majority, and can thus establish a White Racial State as a last refuge for our race (a place where Whites can live as a secure and politically independent racial majority).

The key point being that biological whiteness per se is inadequate to ensure White preservation. Conscious White patriots must hold majoritarian power, and the only way to achieve that is through both racial and racio-ideological separation and sovereignty.

I have been correct in most things in life, and if you live long lives, you will see that I am correct in this, too.


78

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:28 | #

The affliction of Whites being inherent (to their genetics) is the preferred Jewish assessment of the problem (they need Jewish perfecting). Something like a “White Zion” - Christian/Judeo (Paleocon) thematized, thus organized under Noahide law - is the preferred Jewish solution.

Note: Haller is a stooge for Jews and their paleocon agenda, always has been.

He tried for years to put this “White Zion” crap across and he’s tying to sneak it in again after years of relief from his disinformation campaign.

To entertain Haller’s nonsense once again would be like a dog returning to its vomit.


79

Posted by Arthur on Sun, 30 Jul 2017 00:30 | #

Is that the real Leon Haller? I thought GW mentioned a while back that Haller had passed on.


80

Posted by passed-on on Sun, 30 Jul 2017 00:51 | #

GW had mistakenly thought that perhaps Graham Lister had passed-on.

Leon Haller had passed-on in the sense that he was invited to leave - and had done so to our great relief - perhaps gone to where his Catholicism and philo-Semitism is welcome.

The air and the vistas are clear without his disinformation here. It is wonderful.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: There’s no “there there” to Russian investigation only where the Alt-Right doesn’t want there to be.
Previous entry: Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

Jordan Peterson on hygienic aspect of racism commented in entry ''White privilege' as a warrant for expropriation; Christianity as the executing jurisdiction.' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 06:53. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:20. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:01. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 04:56. (View)

(((Trump admin))) liking objectivism for the Fed commented in entry 'Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017)' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 03:46. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:30. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:28. (View)

Kurdish PKK at war with Iraq commented in entry 'Kurdish Female Sniper Dodges Headshot; laughs it off' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Worst mass shooting in US history as gunman opens fire from above killing 50+ Vegas concert goers' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:59. (View)

Support for those going to Court commented in entry 'Jez Turner - Honour our Heroes' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:49. (View)

Swarm at Hungarian border fence commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:26. (View)

thought captors kidding that Trump is president commented in entry 'US opens first permanent military base in Israel' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:19. (View)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn commented in entry 'Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together: Russia & the Jews - Obstructions Continue' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:55. (View)

(((LaurenSouthern))) antiracist anarcholibertarian commented in entry 'Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017)' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:46. (View)

Orbán maintains a link with Hungarian diaspora commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:47. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:14. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:03. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:37. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:33. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:01. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:55. (View)

National-Satanist commented in entry 'Angela Nagle: they think voluntary outbreeding is genocide. Cultural Marxism, Jewish porn! lol.' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:40. (View)

National-Satanist commented in entry 'Angela Nagle: they think voluntary outbreeding is genocide. Cultural Marxism, Jewish porn! lol.' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:11. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 07:56. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 06:09. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 05:56. (View)

More images from Irgisli commented in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 02:58. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 10:10. (View)

Of primordial Eurasian or meeting again in Irgisli commented in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 10:05. (View)

Irgisli commented in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 06:46. (View)

Urals village where Europe meets Asia commented in entry 'Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines?' on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 03:16. (View)

affection-tone