[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
LONDON, ENGLAND: Anti-Brexit campaigner Steve Bray protesting outside of the Houses of Parliament on January 30, 2020 in London, United Kingdom. At 11.00pm on Friday 31st January the UK and Northern Ireland will exit the European Union 188 weeks after the referendum on June 23rd 2016.
In 2016, Britain voted for Brexit. On Friday—four years, three prime ministers and two general elections later—the country will leave the European Union. Officially stepping out into the world is a major moment for a country that has driven itself mad on the tortuous path to the exit door. And yet, even the buildup to this historic event typified the silliest aspects of the years between the “leave” vote and the actual leaving.
Two quarrels about how Britain would mark the occasion broke out in recent weeks, one about a bell, the other about a coin. First came the fuss about whether Big Ben would ring out to mark the moment of independence. This Brexiteer wish was complicated by the fact that the bell, and the tower that houses it, are undergoing renovations, meaning a single bong would come with a $700,000 price tag. After Parliament refused to fund the move, and an online fundraising campaign failed to fill the gap, there will be no Big Ben bongs. “If Big Ben doesn’t bong, the world will see us as a joke,” lamented Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage.
A second brouhaha broke out over a commemorative 50 pence coin issued to mark the occasion. The coins, which read, “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations,” soon drew the ire of disbelieving Remainers. Otherwise serious and self-respecting members of the British establishment said they would refuse to use the coins or would deface any that came into their possession. (The novelist Philip Pullman also complained that the coin “is missing an Oxford comma and should be boycotted by all literate people.”)
Britain’s talent for turning these trivial rows into front-page stories illustrates how much the Brexit debate has become a negative-sum culture war, with Leavers and Remainers each compelled to take a side. Yet these dust-ups also obscure some of the more interesting, and important, divides over what Britain does with its newfound freedom. So far, much of the conversation has been backward looking, focused on whether the country would give effect to the 2016 vote with a viable version of Brexit, or whether that vote should be ignored. As Britain leaves the EU, and finally casts an eye forward, there are as many disputes as ever, with global implications, and the fault lines are more complicated than just Leave vs. Remain.
When Prime Minister Boris Johnson triumphed in last month’s election with a promise to “get Brexit done,” his opponents argued that after the sun rises on February 1, Britain’s future relationship with the EU, and a host of related questions, would remain unresolved. In a narrow sense, that claim is irrefutable. But it also misses the bigger picture.
The case for Brexit was built on possibilities. Among other things, exiting the EU allows Britain to decide for itself what trade relationships it should pursue with the rest of the world, the criteria it should set for its immigration system and how to regulate a host of areas that have been the competence of the EU for decades. These are big, difficult decisions in and of themselves. They aren’t part of a Brexit process that will ever be finished. Britain will not one day declare mission accomplished and no longer give any thought to, for example, trade policy—something that, as Americans will know, is an ongoing consideration in the politics of sovereign countries.
Understand that fact, and the divide between Leave and Remain starts to look less significant. On trade, for example, there is a split among Leavers. An image of buccaneering “Global Britain” striking trade deals with fast-growing economies around the world was a big part of the case pro-Brexit politicians made. There is little enthusiasm for this vision among Leave voters. According to one poll, Leave voters were more likely to support protectionist trade policies than Remainers. In fact, whether someone voted Leave was the single best predictor of a person’s support for barriers to trade. Politicians eager to use Brexit as an opportunity for liberalizing UK trade will have to think carefully about which voters they can rely on.
In the subsequent elections, the Freedom Party lost votes, but still won a respectable 17.3 percent. It is a major political force and could have been a partner in government. However, the Austrian People’s Party, which won an even greater share than it had in 2017, did not renew the alliance with the nationalists. Instead, Chancellor Kurz formed a coalition government with the far-left Green Party, declaring that “it is possible to protect border [sic] and the climate at the very same time.”
The New York Times approvingly noted that Mr. Kurz had a chance to “remove some of the stain of that association” with the “far right.” The Washington Postwrote that the Greens replacing the Freedom Party means that government officials “are unlikely to engage in discriminatory hate speech, embarrassing corruption affairs, or verbal threats against journalists.”
Austrian conservatives benefit when the so-called “far right” is deplatformed, just as American “center-right” conservatives do, because Austrians who want immigration control and nationalist policies are forced to vote for the “center-right” if the nationalist opposition is crushed.
The campaign against Martin Sellner is an excellent example of this. He is a leader in what is perhaps the most important movement today. He’s brave, intelligent, and married to a beautiful woman who is a notable activist in her own right and a bridge between European and American patriots. It’s therefore not surprising that “center-right” governments are trying to make their life hell.
There is no “free world,” much as some would like us to believe there is. Austria, the United Kingdom, or France are not much better than Russia or China. In some ways, they’re worse, because Russian or Chinese authoritarianism tries to preserve national identity, strength, and stability. The governments of the post-Western world want to dispossess and replace the existing population, and silence or even arrest anyone who disagrees.
America still has the First Amendment. We can defend our rights, but we should have no illusions about what is coming. Our opponents want to muzzle us and make it as hard as possible even to make a living. Conservatism Inc. will not defend us. It will cheer on repression, knowing that it boosts its short-term power. The beast will consume them too eventually, but they won’t wake up until it’s too late. If our people and civilization are to be saved, it’s up to us — and only us.
The hour is late. Do what you can by registering for the upcoming conference and committing to a White Tithe. I’ll have more thoughts about concrete action soon, and I proclaim full solidarity with the Sellners and other persecuted patriots.
About Gregory Hood: Mr. Hood is a staff writer for American Renaissance. He has been active in conservative groups in the US. His work can also be found on: Parler, Minds, Gab, and VK.
Bring Back Oliver Cromwell - Vic Sarson
I support tougher prison sentences but what is a seriously long sentence in these times where a liberal elite controls the judiciary, the media, education, the civil service and nearly all politicians are signed up to it?
The application of capital punishment certainly needed reviewing but its outright abolition not only demoted the crime of murder but of all violent crime. Now, vicious, violent criminals are treated with greater leniency than someone who has not paid a TV licence.
A recent article in the Daily Mail showed the photographs of six such thugs that had walked out of court smiling having been given non-custodial sentences for vicious random attacks against members of the public. They were separate individuals unknown to each other in British courts in different towns. Another item on another date showed the photograph of an elderly woman who had suffered blows to the head with an axe that were so severe as to expose her skull. The robber had attacked her in broad daylight when she was out shopping. He too walked free from court.
Anyone, it seems, can be a magistrate and the liberals have got it sewn up: the interviewers are liberals and ensure that only liberals are appointed. Judges these days are, in the main, little better.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:10.
Backgrounding: Boris Johnson tells the coal burner to keep her vote for Brexit on the hush and he will look the other way from her more fundamental betrayal of the nation.
Few nations manage to balance their books. They spend more than they collect in taxes and rely on bond sales and borrowing to bridge the gap. When the Labour government came to power in 1997 they inherited a balanced budget but within four years Gordon Brown had turned it into a deficit of £170 billion. The Tories tried to reduce the deficit by cutting public spending but that led to failing schools, understaffed hospitals and rising crime.
The Bank of England’s promise to “pay the bearer on demand” can’t be taken seriously. It has reserves of gold, foreign currencies and government bonds but it issues many times more money than it has on deposit. The BOE also supervises the commercial banks that handle our accounts. This arrangement gives us some protection from a predatory government that has raided our pension funds and would love to gain access to our savings. If they nationalized the banks, our money would become their money.
Perhaps we will devise a better monetary system in the future but in the meantime we should demand strict banking controls and reasonable interest rates. The Thatcher-Reagan banking reforms ended in the crash of 2008. Free from regulation, the banks lent money that they never had to people who could never pay it back. The result was that banks crashed, like Lehman Brothers, or were bailed out by the taxpayers, like the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The Chinese are looking into Social Credit. It’s not exactly the system devised by CH Douglas (pictured) but, like him, they envisage a social wage, or dividend, funded by their booming economy. The ‘unemployed’ would spend their time studying or caring for the elderly. The trouble is that those working would resent those who were not. But economic reforms will have to be made before we sink under the sheer weight of debt.
People with financial problems should only pay what they can reasonably afford, and we need a limit on interest rates. If a borrower has repaid the original loan he should be excused any outstanding interest. That would upset the bankers but they squeezed more than enough out of the system, and many of them were rescued by their tax-paying customers in the crash of 2008.
A Union Jack flag flutters in front of Big Ben as workers inspect one of its clocks, in London on Sept 11. (Reuters photo)
