[Majorityrights News] KP interview with James Gilmore, former diplomat and insider from first Trump administration Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 05 January 2025 00:35.
[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.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 12:17.
27:10: It is Poland’s explicit policy after 1935 to rid itself of 90% of its Jewish population. Given that there were more than three million Jews in Poland that’s a very large number. ..but from their point of view, the way to get rid of the Jews was to support right wing Jewish terrorists who are going to make a lot of trouble in Palestine so there could be a Jewish state.
...from the Nazi point of view, anti-Semitism is part of [their concept of] racial anarchy. The Nazi point of view is that Jews are the ones who are in the way of a racial struggle, which is non-political.
The Polish point of view is different. The Polish point of view is attached to the state. They don’t understand that the Nazis are about racial anarchy. ...the[y think rather that the] way to handle whatever problem they’re defining, even what they see as the struggle against Jews, is by way of states. So, you either negotiate with the British or behind their back you find a way to create a state in Palestine and then you can get the Jews sent off there.
...to emphasize the point that there are different kinds of anti-Semitism, it’s not just a matter of turning up the dial or turning down a dial ..or who is more anti-Semitic the Poles or the Germans.. there are issues of quality here which matter, especially when the quality has to do with the state. ..but where we’ve gotten to in history is the moment where Germany starts to destroy states. Where this theory of state destruction actually becomes practice.
30:40: Poland is where Hitler finally gets his war. It’s not the war that he wanted; it’s not a war that he had planned; it’s not a war that he expected. But when he made war against Poland it was the first war that he prosecuted while actively destroying the state.
When he talks to his high officers in July/ August 1939, before the war… early September 1939, what he tells them is that this war is not like other wars. It’s not about territory. It’s not about victory. It’s not about seizing a certain amount of land. It’s about destroying Poland as a state and as a nation.
In other words, it’s not just about destroying the Polish army; but about coming into the country, declaring that the civil code no longer functions; the Polish state does not exist; (this is where it gets interesting) the Polish state has never existed.
So, the claim that they make when they enter Poland is basically the same kind of claim that European imperialists made beyond Europe; that the territory we’re entering is uninhabited, at least in the sense of being uninhabited by political beings.
So, Poland is treated colonially in the sense that the Polish state is not acknowledged as an institution; actively not acknowledged. And the people who are thought to represent it, whether they are military officers, whether they are civilian politicians, whether they are Roman Catholic priests, are physically eliminated - killed: in the tens of thousands. That’s not an accident. That’s part of the idea of destroying the Polish state.
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.
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.
They discuss Tommy Robinson, viz., his disingenuous activities as controlled opposition.
Collett was prompted to this critique having been criticized, ridiculed and denounced explicitly by Tommy Robinson (including being publicly and harshly criticized by Robinson on the day of Collett’s daughter’s birth; and subsequently by Robinson in the video shown below, as one who didn’t but should be having babies; while in fact Collett is fathering).
Laura Towler weighs-in against Tommy Robinson, as well, addressed by him in the same diatribe as “some bird” who should be having sex and making babies rather than merely hating fecund migrants - particularly the Muslims, who Tommy Robinson’s controlled opposition wants to focus on, with minimal criticism of other non English migrants, and no criticism of Jewish peoples.
A Union Jack flag flutters in front of Big Ben as workers inspect one of its clocks, in London on Sept 11. (Reuters photo)
