WASHINGTON: At times it has seemed as though this presidential campaign was occurring in some alternate universe. Up is down, no means yes, day is night.
Donald Trump’s tweets, speeches, interviews, debate statements, news conferences and off-the-cuff remarks — that is, pretty much every utterance made during his waking hours — have been a source of hyperbole at hyper-speed. His misstatements have been so ubiquitous that Hillary Clinton’s slippery words often slithered right on by unnoticed.
Trump made pernicious use of fictional numbers, concocted certain events and both contradicted and mispresented his earlier self.
Clinton took actual facts and went beyond them, promising more than she can deliver, cherry-picking numbers and otherwise standing for the lawyerly Washington tradition of paying partial heed to reality while bending it to her advantage. Cautious by nature, she was most inclined to stretch facts to their snapping point when on the defensive about her email practices, which was often. Clinton’s defensive position, in essence: The dog ate my homework.
With Election Day finally, nearly upon us, some lowlights from both candidates:
For Trump, day is night
On Clinton’s approach to borders: “She wants to let people just pour in. You could have 650 million people pour in and we do nothing about it. Think of it. That’s what could happen.”
The facts: For this to happen, every other country in the Americas, from Mexico south to Chile’s southern tip, and a chunk of Canada would have to empty its entire population into the US.
But wait, there’s more.
Trump said that under Clinton, this could happen “in one week.”
This was no a slip of the tongue — at several events he’s spoken of 600 million coming in under Clinton; at another, 650 million. This doesn’t faintly resemble anything Clinton has proposed for the US (population 325 million).
Trump is riffing off of a leaked Clinton speech to bankers in which she spoke of her dream of a “hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” The remarks in context suggested an interest in free commerce, not necessarily the free movement of people. But no one is talking about packing whole populations from other Western Hemisphere countries into the US like sardines.
Numbers are always pliable in the political arena; for Trump they are often whatever he wants them to be. He routinely overstates the US trade deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, no matter how many times he’s called on it.
On the battle of Mosul, Iraq, and other operations against Islamic State militants: “Whatever happened to the element of surprise?”
The facts: Many generals agree with Trump that it is folly to tell ISIL that it is about to be attacked. But those are armchair generals. Real ones tend to see the value in pre-announcing a major offensive.
In the case of Mosul, signaling an assault in advance was a way for Iraqi forces to warn civilians in the city and to encourage a resistance movement to weaken ISIL before the battle began. Moreover, any element of surprise had been long lost; preparations for the battle began more than a year ago, with the US part in it under close scrutiny by Congress.
More broadly, Trump’s theory that secrecy should surround all such operations reflects a lack of understanding of how this battle against ISIL has developed over the past two years, as well as certain obligations to keep Congress informed. Basic decisions like when to assault Mosul are left to the Iraqi government, because it is the Iraqis who will have to govern the place when the fighting is done.
The US wants the Iraqis to own the Mosul problem – both militarily and politically — so they don’t repeat the mistakes that allowed ISIL to capture the city in the first place.
Mosul was the obvious last major target of an Iraqi counteroffensive against ISIL, whose ability to defend the city had been undermined by months of US airstrikes against its leaders and financial and military resources. Surprise was not an option.
When Clinton accused him of calling climate change a hoax invented by the Chinese: “I did not. I did not.”
When asked about telling people on Twitter to check out a sex tape: “It wasn’t ‘check out a sex tape.’”
The facts: On these and other occasions, Trump has blithely denied making statements he plainly made — even though he was caught on tape making them.
In a 2012 tweet, he wrote: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.” He later claimed he was kidding, but he’s also repeated the claim that climate change is a hoax, and one that benefits China. In 2014: “Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!”
During this campaign, he also tweeted “check out sex tape and past” of former 1996 Miss Universe Alicia Machado, whom Clinton discussed in a presidential debate as an example of Trump’s derogatory comments about women.
Machado, a Clinton supporter, criticised Trump for body-shaming her by calling her “Miss Piggy” when she gained weight. Was there a sex tape? In a manner, yes. Machado was filmed in a 2005 Spanish-language reality show in bed with a man; no nudity is seen but she said they were having sex in the footage.
Trump: “I was against the war in Iraq, because I said it’s gonna totally destabilise the Middle East. … I was opposed to war from the beginning. … “I would not have had our troops in Iraq.”
The facts: Trump publicly supported the war before it started and praised its early progress. He’s insisted otherwise uncountable times, despite the record.
It’s true he wasn’t a cheerleader for the March 2003 invasion. For example, he said a few months before the war that the economy and North Korea were bigger problems. But that’s hardly opposition. In September 2002, he told Howard Stern on the radio, when asked if he would back an invasion, “Yeah, I guess so.” Days after the invasion, he said it “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint.”
Moreover, Trump offered support for a hypothetical invasion of Iraq in his 2000 book, suggesting he would favor a pre-emptive strike if Iraq were viewed as a threat to national security.
Trump did turn against the long-running war before many in Washington did. But that does not show the foresight he claimed when campaigning against Republican primary rivals who backed the invasion and when campaigning against Clinton, who voted in the Senate for the war. He was not against it when the decisions were being made about whether to start it.
Trump: “I watched when the World Trade Centre came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. … It was on television. I saw it.”
The facts: This early head-scratcher, from November 2015, helped set a pattern of tall tales that would continue through the campaign. It also fed into one of the signature insults of a campaign full of them — when Trump appeared to mock the disabilities of a New York Times reporter whose recollections from New Jersey after the 9/11 attacks did not support his own.
No video or other proof of large-scale celebrations of the falling towers by Muslims in New Jersey ever emerged.
Serge Kovaleski of the Times, who was working for The Washington Post in 2001, reported in the week after 9/11 that authorities in New Jersey detained and questioned “a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks.”
Kovaleski has a congenital condition that restricts joint movement. In a speech, Trump went after the “the poor guy, you oughta see this guy” — making jerking gestures and taking a mocking tone.
Trump later denied he was imitating Kovaleski and further claimed “I have no idea” who he is and didn’t know of his condition. But Kovaleski said he had met Trump repeatedly, in face-to-face face interviews and at news conferences, and “Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years.”
On why he continued to raise questions about Barack Obama’s country of birth even after the president produced his birth certificate in 2011: “Nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it.”
The facts: Trump himself continued to press false theories about Obama’s birthplace after they were debunked. His claim that the matter faded when the birth certificate came out belies his efforts to keep the myth alive.
“Was it a birth certificate?” he asked in a 2012 interview. “He was perhaps born in Kenya. Very simple, OK?” Trump said in 2014. “Who knows about Obama?” Trump asked in January 2016.
Clinton: The dog ate my homework
“For those of you who are concerned about my using personal email, I understand. And as I’ve said, I’m not making excuses. I’ve said it was a mistake and I regret it.”
The facts: She has made a variety of excuses on the way to a grudging acknowledgment that her use of a personal server and email for State Department business was wrong.
She’s said she used personal email because she wanted the simplicity of a single digital device, although it turned out she carried several devices. She said her email practices were “approved” when they were not — they merely had not been expressly prohibited at the time for the secretary of state.
She said she didn’t understand that material marked with a “c” that passed through her personal communications system meant it was confidential. She said other secretaries of state did it first. That’s partly true, but in a limited way and not with their own servers. She said she never passed on classified material in her system. The FBI found she passed on three email chains with information that had classified markings in the body of the emails; the State Department contended two of those chains held unclassified material.
On the Trans-Pacific Partnership: “I did say I hoped it would be a good deal.”
The facts: Clinton heartily supported the Pacific trade deal in speeches around the world as secretary of state; she did not merely hope it would turn out well. Clinton declared in Australia in 2012, “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.” Similar speeches elsewhere affirmed her belief that the deal, still under negotiation, was “groundbreaking,” ”exciting” and “embodied” 21st century standards.
That position became awkward if not untenable in her Democratic primary race against Bernie Sanders, a foe of the deal, and she turned against it. Her less-than-detailed explanation: The deal as finally negotiated did not measure up to her standards for protecting US wages, jobs and national security. Yet the final deal contains some of the strongest labor protections of any US trade agreement.
The subject became Exhibit A in the case made by critics that she lets political currents, instead of personal conviction, guide her.
A hacked email from Clinton adviser Joel Benenson may have inadvertently lent weight to that suspicion. “Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?” he asked. “Sanders has simplicity and focus.”
Clinton: “I don’t add a penny to the national debt.”
The facts: Not true, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It estimates her increased spending in areas such as infrastructure, more financial aid for college and early childhood education, would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years. That is far less than their estimate for Trump, who they predict would add $5.3 trillion over 10 years. But it’s plenty more than a penny.
One for the road
Trump to Clinton: “You’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.”
The facts: The Islamic State group did not exist for almost all of Clinton’s adult life. She’s 69. ISIL is 4.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 27 October 2016 03:31.
While Duda and Orbán’s invocation of the centrality of Christianity to the nationalist cause will be disconcerting to many of us more wise to the fact that it is a Jewish Trojan horse, we should be charitable enough to understand that it has been, and remains still, a culturally habituated way of saying “not Jewish.”
It is up to us to support native European nationalist efforts by pointing-out that this is a provisional distinction at best, albeit a 2,000 year old provision, which has had a way of binding nationalist masses and yoking their identity with Noahide laws (as Kumiko astutely observes) - thus, ultimately, to Jewish control if we do not successfully liberate ourselves from the false identity that is the “Gentile” (as GW astutely observes) - an “identity” which knows no distinction other than “the undifferentiated other” to Jews and its beholdenness to its Jewish forebears for its messiah and its law.
Enough sour grapes for now. There is certainly hope in Duda’s concordance with Orbán in furtherance of the Intermarium project on display at the commemoration of the 1955 Hungarian Uprising -
Visigrad Post, “Duda and Orbán against Brussels’ sovietisation”, 24 Oct 2016:
Hungary, Budapest – On Sunday, October 23, Hungary celebrated the start of the ’56 uprising. In front of the Hungarian parliament, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Polish President Andrzej Duda gave a strong speech against the current policy of the European Union, about Christianity and about the deep friendship between Poland and Hungary.
Polish President Duda greeting the crowd. MTI Fotó: Szigetváry Zsolt
In front of thousands of people gathered on the place Kossuth, in the center of Budapest, Hungarian PM Orbán and Polish President Duda made a speech welcomed by Hungarian and Polish citizens. President Duda first talked in front of the crowd. The Polish President started his speech by saying few words in Hungarian. Hungarians “have always been friends” and they can always rely on Poland, “even in difficult moments of the future,” said Andrzej Duda.
Poland is “proud and grateful” that it was able to provide aid to the Hungarian revolution, Duda said, and noted that his people had sent 44 tonnes of medicine and medical equipment as well as 800 litres of blood to Hungary shortly after the uprising broke out. “Poles are proud that the grandchildren of 1956 heroes have, symbolically, Polish blood in their veins”, the president said. In Hungary’s freedom fight “thousands died, but after some decades, finally, you recovered your freedom through much suffering and sacrifice,” Duda said. He also voiced his conviction that “through hard work both Poles and Hungarians will achieve the living standards of western societies”, reports Hungary Today.
Concerning the traditional friendship between the two countries, Duda said that they together “carry on the thousand-year-old Christian tradition in Europe”, and insisted that those traditions were just as important as freedom. “God bless Poland and Hungary, glory to the heroes of the Hungarian revolution,” Duda said concluding his address.
Viktor Orbán during his speech on Sunday, October 23
“Protect Brussels against Sovietisation”
Then, Prime Minister Orbán gave his speech. The European Union must not be turned into a “modern-age empire”; the community must not be replaced by a “United States of Europe”, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on Sunday. Viktor Orbán said that “freedom-loving peoples of Europe must save Brussels from Sovietisation”.
“We, Hungarians, want to remain a European nation, rather than become an ethnic minority in Europe,” Orbán insisted. “It is only our national independence that can save us from being devoured by an empire,” Orbán said, and argued that it was that very “national idea” that had saved Hungary from being integrated into the Soviet Union. As descendants of 1956, Hungarians “cannot let Europe cut the roots that had once made it great and also helped us survive communist oppression,” Orbán said. He added that Europe could not be “free, strong, and respectable without the revitalising power of nations and two thousand years of Christian wisdom”. The prime minister insisted that Hungary had chosen “the hard way” when it “preferred children of its own to immigrants, work to speculation, earning a living to becoming a slave of indebtedness, and protecting borders to surrendering”.
Hungarians will always fight for freedom and will achieve it “even in the most hopeless of situations,” Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said at the state commemoration marking the 60th anniversary of Hungary’s anti-Soviet uprising of 1956. “We, Hungarians, have a talent for freedom, we have always known how to use it. He warned that freedom is “not a final state but a way of existence; just like swimming: you stop doing it and you will sink”. The question is always this simple: whether we decide on our own fate or other people,” he added. October 23 is a day on which Hungarians should be proud, the prime minister said.
History puts Hungary in the mainstream of disputes on the future of Europe every 30 years, the prime minister said. He argued that in 1956 Hungary attempted to “shift the Iron Curtain east of our borders”, then in 1989 the country opened its western borders “so that Germans could find a way to Germans”. And most recently, Hungary “had to close its borders to stop the influx of migrants from the south”, he said. Hungary will not falter “even if those whom we are trying to protect attack us from behind”; we have “the courage to face injustice… and Europe can always rely on us,” Orbán said.
Trump: Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman, he told Greta Van Susteren. I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.
Van Susteren: You said she’s out at the end of this term, do you think we’re going to see her again running for office?
Trump: I think so, assuming she’s healthy, which I hope she will be, I think she probably runs after the next four years, I would imagine.
Van Susteren: Do you support her?
Trump: I don’t want to get into this because I don’t want to get myself into trouble…
Van Susteren (interrupting): That’s why I asked you, to see if you’d get into trouble.
Trump: I just like her. I like her and I like her husband. Her husband made a speech on Monday at Mar-a-Lago (Palm Beach mansion owned by Trump) and it was very well received. He’s a really good guy and she’s a really good person and woman.
Trump’s hypocrisy indicates that the 2016 election is more characteristic of two sides of the same coin - a position that racialists used to be more wryly accustomed-to prior to the largely successful effort by the Republican party to co-opt White Nationalism. Recall Gov. George Wallace’s statement oft cited by WN, that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Party.”
In additional hypocrisy - 1998: Trump calls Paula Jones “a loser”, says that “she may be responsible for bringing-down a standing President (Clinton) indirectly.”
The Slatest, “Watch Donald Trump Call Paula Jones “a Loser” in 1998 Interview”, 9 Oct 2016:
Shortly before the second presidential debate started, Donald Trump held a jaw-dropping “news conference” with three women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault (and a third whose accused rapist was represented by Hillary Clinton). One of those women was Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee who sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment.
Trump is now trying to portray himself as the champion for the women, yet he didn’t feel the same way in 1998. “Paula Jones is a loser, but the fact is that she may be responsible for bringing down a president indirectly,” Trump said in an interview with Chris Matthews on August 28, 1998. The interview took place mere days after Bill Clinton acknowledged he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
..and the “loser” is…
Jones had filed a lawsuit against Clinton, saying he had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her while he was governor of Arkansas. That suit was settled for $850,000 with no admission of guilt.
A bonus on what Trump used to think about Bill Clinton’s accusers is that he once pretty much said the only reason why the then-president got in trouble was because Lewinsky was ugly. “It’s sad because he would go down as a great President if he had not had this scandal,” Trump said in a 1999 interview with Maureen Dowd. “People would have been more forgiving if he’d had an affair with a really beautiful woman of sophistication. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were on a different level.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 02:17.
BuzzfeedNews, “Revealed: Nearly Half The Adults In Britain And Europe Hold Extremist Views” 7 Oct 2016:
Exclusive: A groundbreaking new study of 12 European countries has revealed how far anti-immigrant, nationalist, and authoritarian attitudes have spread from the political fringes.
Almost half of the adults in 12 European countries now hold anti-immigrant, nationalist views, according to major new research that reveals the spread of fringe political views into the mainstream.
BuzzFeed has been given exclusive access to new data from YouGov, which polled more than 12,000 people across the continent to measure the extent of what it termed “authoritarian populist” opinions – a combination of anti-immigration sentiments, strong foreign policy views, and opposition to human rights laws, EU institutions, and European integration policies.
The YouGov findings are the first to capture the political attitudes that are both fuelling, and being fuelled by, upheaval across Europe and beyond – from the continent’s refugee crisis and the Brexit vote in Britain, to the burkini ban in France, to the rise of Donald Trump and the radical “alternative right” in the US.
In Britain, the poll found authoritarian populist attitudes were shared by 48% of adults, despite less than 20% of the population identifying itself as right-wing. Three months on from the EU referendum, prime minister Theresa May has responded this week by appealing directly to disaffected working-class voters with a promise to crackdown on immigration and reassert British sovereignty.
In France, a clear majority of people surveyed – 63% – held authoritarian populist views, while in Italy the figure was 47%. In Germany, it was 18%, which appears low by comparison but, given the country’s history and the extreme nature of its far-right groups, is regarded by analysts as surprisingly high.
The highest levels of authoritarian populist views were recorded in Romania and Poland, where they were held by 82% and 78% of adults respectively. In Lithuania, by contrast, the poll did not did not detect any evidence of the authoritarian populist phenomenon at all.
Hover over the map to view the proportion of authoritarian populists in each country.
*In Romania authoritarian populist attitudes were pro-EU unlike in the other countries surveyed. Chris Applegate/BuzzFeed
Well then, these views are not “extreme” in any terms but those of the (((legacy media))).
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 03 October 2016 01:37.
Before I post Bill’s lovely, just one editorial note, and you can all guess what it’s going to be about. The (((YKW))) misrepresentation of the crucial notion of post modernity. I cannot blame him for reviling “post modern relativism” as it has been (((presented and distorted))).
Just one caveat on Bill’s comment thus regarding his indispensable experience of (((post modernity))) - White post modernity is a difference that makes a difference in that it recognizes that we are relative to and different from other cultures. Therefore, it seeks to manage our ways given that awareness, as opposed to the oblivious, modernist, narcissistic unawareness of important differences in others - oblivious to that, it proceeds destructively in modernization, in “progress” toward “universal foundations”, a notion that underwrites the liberal upshot of its agenda, the boundless destruction, without a White post modern turn or recognition of the legitimacy and importance of reconstructing our inherent, relative forms.
Of course (((YKW))) are heavily influential in the BBC and take advantage by misusing what modicum of agency that relativism provides, to completely distort and abuse that and what might otherwise be benign and healthy notions of a diverse and multicultural world.
One other note: Auster should be written (((Auster))) to be clear, so that his motives come to attention.
To chronical the role of television (MSM) in the modern age would take a tome.
So what do I mean when I say we’re all a BBC construct now?
I suppose what I’m saying in a roundabout way is the BBC is the most powerful institution in the land, far outweighing the influence of our elected governments. Nobody votes for the BBC, few know their names and yet they have this immense cultural vice like grip on a whole population.
Fortunately for me, my lifespan has almost mirrored exactly that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Born in 1938 you might say I’ve grown up with the BBC, especially with regard to the development of Television. By the onset of 1950’s I was old enough to appreciate this marvel of the modern age. Back in those days I cannot claim to know how television would progress and what role it would play in the future of my country. However, I can say for certain one cannot today measure the distance in years the gulf of character of 1950’s to what television has become today. In a way, myself and those of my generation have had a ringside seat in witnessing the progress and development of post war television from Muffin the Mule to Star Trek?
With hindsight, the 1950’s to me represented the pinnacle of old Britishness. I could give an account of how it was for me, but suffice to say, by the onset of the 1960’s the Britishness I loved so much - had gone. Mostly, I don’t have the time to narrate how this sea change came about, but I did witness first-hand what a vital part BBC television has played in Britain’s downfall. I also heavily note (by passive viewing) the era of the 1950’s is unfailingly depicted by the BBC as oppressively deferential, wishing good riddance and a kick up the backside to the decade. I can only ask did the producers and script writers experience living during the 1950’s? As an aside, television has been given a new task – the rewriting of history. This sinister trait is in conjunction with the complete destruction of white identity. I note postmodern relativism rearing its head here. One man’s meat is another man’s poison! Hmm! Don’t let’s go down that road.
As I commented above, the role of the BBC’s remit from the beginning was to sway the whole of the British public into accepting whatever the BBC were peddling. I used the term normalising the status quo. In a nutshell, the BBC (media) have, over many decades, inculcated into the British viewer’s psyche the acceptance of mass immigration into their living space. With undreamed of success.
Fast forward to the present narrative which is dominating certain sections of the Internet and one can see how successful the media have been. All those here know perfectly well the tactics employed with such professional dedication, I don’t think I need to expand. It has never ceased to amaze me over the years how little comment from bloggers has been on the subject of the role of the media’s devastating contribution to Britain’s demise.
I’ve lost count of the number of my comments saying without the input of British media influence, the elite’s agenda could not have succeeded to the absolute degree it has. The hubris of the media and its hanger’s on knows no constraint, to them they are cock-a-hoop basking in success beyond all expectation. Who can argue with that?
The BBC’s talking heads jubilantly polish their halos and declare Multicultural Britain is a fact and resounding success. Does this mean the media will relax its grip on poor battered Britain? Is it all over? To quote those immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme – It is now!
I asked here some time ago. Before Facebook and Twitter had grown to what it is today, what were the chances of a ‘revealing mail’ going viral thereby highlighting the parlous plight of whites. I’m surprised the media has not been forced to enter this conversation, surely the centre cannot hold – something’s got to give.
I can’t wait for that moment.
As I write this, the political western world (as Blair once opined) is in flux. The kaleidoscope has been shaken - the pieces are still falling.
Question to the BBC …. Who do you think you’re talking to?
I don’t watch television save the BBC news mostly at lunchtime.
From my lofty perch at my computer I note how normal everything seems. Neighbours chatting going about their chores, children ready for school, the postman on his round. This is how it’s always been for all of my life. Neat houses - manicured lawns. Most folk at work, leaving a peaceful dormer suburb to welcome them home at the end of a day’s work. From my window I reflect on the just seen news and ask myself how can this be? This state of affairs is cognisant dissonance on a pandemic scale
More likely than not I’m looking and listening on screen at a non-white face confidently reading from the autocue informing me my nation’s current events and history. Be it political, economic, whatever, maybe even the burning question of reintroduction of Grammar schools or whatever else- to distract the viewer to look the other way.
Do the native Brits watch the news with their eyes wide shut, can’t they see what’s coming down the pike? Perhaps more importantly - do they care?
Recently we had the Olympic Games from Brazil, for which the whole of the BBC’s output for the duration was the glorification of the nation state of these isles. The BBC are very picky as to how they portray the nation to the nation’s viewers, whether to glorify or denigrate. Praise the natives for their tolerance, or amp up the megaphone of racism for such as Brexit. It’s all according in what context our nation is being judged by the media. The BBC basks in the reflected glory of supremacism of team Britain and yet in reality, in the eyes of the BBC we’re all equal, and yet in other quarters, they denigrate our browbeaten population into abject submission.
Our country is on the cusp, it’s reached its tipping point. Old Britain is slowly receding to the water’s edge. Britain already is no more. Alien people in their millions from every quarter of the globe setting sights on reaching Britain, the indigenous Brits, balefully gazing, have no answers.
All of which, leads me to ask again of the BBC, to whom are you addressing? Is it Somali’s, Bangladeshi’s, Syrians, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians or a myriad of other communities from around the Globe? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the native people of this land but I doubt it, for long ago they have been abandoned to a fate we know not which.
I suspect the BBC will respond by jubilantly declaring that Britain is now a multi-cultural, multi-racial society - we are as one. Get over it!
When young Turks straight from uni gather in the newsroom to compile the latest news, how do they decide which community to address?
I watched a piece recently about the centenary of the Battle of Jutland, I couldn’t help but notice how incongruous it all seemed. A non-white face telling a white nation of its history. Do the BBC do it deliberately?
All of this leads a once homogenous people to disorientation and chaos, without bearing, how can the BBC talk to a whole nation with any degree of consensus? I despair how the British people have allowed this state of affairs to come to pass. To me it defies gravity.
It is manifestly clear the BBC (MSM) have been charged with normalising the situation for the past 60 years. People can’t say they were never warned.
Auster was right, the English have done it to themselves. They didn’t resist - and are still not resisting.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 05 August 2016 04:09.
Visigard Post, “The Visegrád Four unite on forest management and ecology,” 3 August 2016:
Slovakia – The Visegrád Group’s countries signed a memorandum of collaboration for forest management.
The ministers and secretaries of state responsible for Agriculture and Forestry met in Slovakia on July 8 to sign a memorandum of collaboration across the Visegrád Group (V4). The document led to lay the foundations of cooperation between Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary for forest management covering several countries, the permanent exchange of information on the forestry sector, knowledge exchange industry experts and professionals, supranational cooperation in joint programs and especially the establishment of a common forest policy for the V4.
All parties have agreed to support the efforts which they have undertaken on their own, and have created a working group to follow up their work. Departmental officials will meet once a year and specific working groups will be created as needed. For now on, at a regional scale and inside the EU, the Visegrád Group will speak with one voice on the issues of forest management and ecology.
The men arrived during morning mass in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, a working-class town near Rouen, northwest of Paris, where the 85-year-old parish priest, Father Jacques Hamel, was leading prayers
Knife-wielding attackers interrupted a French church service, forced the priest to his knees and slit his throat on Tuesday, a murder made even more shocking as one of the assailants was a known would-be jihadist under supposedly tight surveillance.
Church in St. Etienne
As the attackers came out of the church shouting “Allahu akbar” (“God is Greatest”) they were shot and killed by police..
“They forced him to his knees and he tried to defend himself and that’s when the drama began,” Sister Danielle, who escaped as the attackers slayed the priest, told RMC radio.
“They filmed themselves. It was like a sermon in Arabic around the altar,” the nun said.
Three other worshippers were held hostage until the assailants were killed, one of them was badly wounded during the attack.