Nobody knows what really happened, but there is a theory that the KGB in 1981 used the Grey Wolves as a cutout to assassinate John Paul II. Agca, the shooter, certainly had links to the Grey Wolves.
Correct. Nothing is established. I recall an article about JP II having a personal meeting with Agca in prison some years later. There was no official report of what they said to each other, but the article speculated circumstantially, and plausibly, that the hit was ordered by Ayatollah Khomeini's regime in Iran. That's not established either.
Actually there are photos of that meeting between JJPII and Agca. A priest to whom 30 years ago I used to tell my confession had it on the wall of his office.
Too many people don't know what constitutes a fact. And even in history there is as much art as science.
As was mentioned above, nothing's established. The KGB does not have a track record for taking out world leaders (that's the purview of our own CIA). Sure, the Soviets have been known to eliminate dissidents or terrorists, like when the KGB caught up with Stepan Bandera in Munich in 1959, but I just don't see Moscow orchestrating the assassination of the spiritual leader of one billion Catholics.
You're talking about the Soviet Union in its last spasm of aggression before the rot brought it down. I'm surprised to hear there's even any doubt about Soviet involvement- It's been common knowledge since the 80s. Apparently Putin's propagandists are spreading disinformatsiya to whitewash the Soviet record. What next Springtime for Stalin?
Well, people were very skeptical of a strong federal government, which is why Hamilton and Madison and Jay had to work so hard to make the case in the Federalist Papers. But apparently the Articles of Confederation were also not sustainable, and something needed to be done at that time.
How does it compare? I don't know; it seems like a very different historical context.
Words like that seem aspirational, though, since it is a political question: a union hangs together until it doesn't. We can't just legally mandate that it does so forever.
Ha! You didn't enforce your mandate, obviously! I'm sure most financial planners would be happy to help you 'enforce' it over the years to come, though you will make the people who want you to spend your wealth most unhappy.
Well, European countries really are nations with their own histories, languages etc. US states are not, even if one plays up some regional cultural differences along the "Albion's Seed" lines.
Texas failed in its brief stint as a nation. It was bankrupt and about to be reconquered by Santa Ana when it fell like a fainting bride in James K Polk's embrace.
Even in tiny Maryland, the cultures of Baltimore City, white and black, are radically different than the rural cultures of the Eastern Shore and the mountainous West. The quintessential man of old Baltimore, William Donald Schaeffer, lovingly called the Eastern Shore "the shithouse side of the Chesapeake" after he lost the Eastern Shore in his re-election campaign in 1990. Ironically, Schaeffer's culture is dead within the city where he grew up and became mayor.
Honestly I think both Texas and California should be nations unto themselves. (In case somebody is a sloppy reader, two different countries, not in any kind of arrangement with eachother)
Apparently that new movie *Civil War* involves an alliance between California and Texas?—and as a Texan, I find myself almost insulted by that premise.
Especially since they all have to move to Wisconsin to find work. You can recognize them by their bumper stickers, "Up da UP" and "Used to be a Youper, but now I keeps my ass down here." I used to think those were West Indian slogans, but eventually learned what it was about. "Down here" was a giveaway of course.
Some US states could be seen as having independent histories. There's the South, of course. There are also Utah, Alaska and Hawaii. The South West a bit, too.
Most European nations don't really have the long histories of nationhood that tends to be claimed.
My point was that European nations have unique languages, cultures etc., That's not true of US states (it comes closest with Hawaii, but the native people are a small minority there these days)
States strongly differed on religion and culture, and in close proximity with one another. Rod's home of Louisiana still has a few Cajun speakers, a couple of centuries after the Louisiana purchase and long after statehood. If the differences between the states wasn't as substantial as the differences between the EU member states are, and this I believe in some ways to be true, then shouldn't Europe be at the same risk for breakup or even civil war that the US was? I will add that there is a unifying culture and religion, wokeism, that controls the ruling class in most European countries. Eventually these woke idiots will be outnumbered by Muslims. I've been aware of this inevitable outcome since Mark Steyn wrote America Alone almost 20 years ago. If anything, everything is much worse than he foresaw.
Re: States strongly differed on religion and culture, and in close proximity
Compared to Europe, the differences were minimal. Louisiana did have a distinct ethnic minority-- as did New York with its original Dutch population (many of whom still spoke Dutch as late as 1800). Both groups have long since been Americanized and speak English, though Cajun at least is still found, albeit with only bilingual speakers. It's going the same way as most Native American languages have.
The Dutch, but also a mixture of German and Irish, with some Italian and Jewish influence thrown in. I can still tell the difference between the New York accents of those with Italian backgrounds from those of Irish and Jewish backgrounds. But I don't want to annoy anyone with examples, lol.
It doesn't. Europe was a collection of sovereign nations, some of which danced around some kind of federation. The American colonies were all British dependencies, couldn't have won independence without unified action and a national army and navy, realized they couldn't stand on their own, and entered into a "more perfect union" virtually from the beginning. Except for the original 13, and Vermont (which was a special case in many ways), all other states were formed from national territory by an act of congress. Which European nation was formed by an act of the Euro parliament?
I don't think you can separate the excesses of the looney left from military opportunism of China, Russia, Iran, et al. I'm not so conspiracy minded as to say that the crazy was some great psy-op. It might be. But regardless of where it originated, it stands as one hell of an opportunity for our adversaries to destabilize both the government and what tatters remain of the social fabric. What better time to wage your wars of aggression when your enemies are [sometimes literally] shooting each other?
I'm actually deeply concerned that the left will overplay their hand not because of what it means for liberty, but because we might then get some real, disciplined blowback from the moderates and center right. When that happens, China/Russia, etc. will recognize that their window of opportunity is starting to close. God only knows what desperate act they'll try to pull off then.
We need to get off our dependence on Taiwan's semiconductor chips. (Until I learned about that, it was hard to understand why we're so worked up about what happens there.)
Totally, but that's not the least of our worries. The US is decline. The sharks smell blood in the water. We did this to ourselves with decades of bone headed spending, the abstraction of our economy, the shedding of stabilizing values, and the waging of wars of empire. It's a deep hole and the sides are sand. I don't know how you climb out of it.
One likely outcome is just the return of a multipolar world, which is fairly normal in historical terms. To some extent, we might just be spoiled and treat it as the end of the world that we'll no longer be at liberty to go galavanting on a whim to every corner of the earth. And also, we're still bounded by oceans to the east and west, along with moose and maple syrup to the north, so it could be worse.
In relative decline yes-- as other nations come up. And IMO that's a good thing. We are not in absolute decline. As I have pointed out several times here we are now the world's leading energy producer bar none. Our agriculture makes us one of the leading food producers. We may be a bit below replacement, but our demographics are healthier than other European nations' and far more so than Japan's or Korea's-- or China's. And even with recent declines in religious membership we're still better than Europe on that stat too. Where we fall short-- inequality, for example-- we've long been in dumps.
On the chips, there’s really no way the US domestic industry will catch up with Taiwan. They are a couple years ahead, which makes a massive difference. (To our military for one, which needs the most advanced chips to stay on top.) Taiwan’s lead is down to work ethic inside the industry here. We won’t catch up. When we getto where Taiwan is now, they will be two more years ahead.
On “getting worked up,” well, Taiwan is a very successful democracy of 23 million people—i.e. the size of Australia. It isn’t a “small island” or city state. Should the US just let it get taken by the CCP? Aside from being a very serious blow to any claims we have of defending democracies, there would be huge practical fallout. Not just chips either, bad as that loss would be. Most analysts see that doing so would show our other allies in Asia that we’re willing to let China become hegemon. And they’d make diplomatic/economic adjustments to suit this new Asian order.
The best thing is to do everything possible to maintain the status quo. Which means convincing Beijing that invasion would be very very risky.
My assumption here is that we aren't going to be able to project a global sphere of influence forever, and that we're eventually gonna have to "let" a lot of things happen, because we won't have the power to stop them. So we sort of need a contingency plan.
That's interesting to know about the scale of Taiwan, though—I didn't realize that.
Our problem is that how we've projected this influence has mainly been a matter of profit-taking for the military-industrial complex. Cf. Iraq, Afghanistan. A lot of Americans will say: "The Bush Administration! So DUMB. How could they imagine they'd create a stable democracy in Sunni/Shia divided Mesopotamia!" These people don't get it. Those who wanted the Iraq war didn't really care whether the mission was successful. Only that the mission could be billed to the taxpayers.
The reason we don't win wars is because winning wars isn't the point. Billing the taxpayers is.
We're still the world's most powerful economy. Rather surprisingly, in my view. And we have the innovation on most fronts. If Washington can figure out a way to deploy and profit from our might without simply throwing it into dumpsters (as with the Mideast) we could project influence well beyond any contender for years to come.
I'm not saying I'm optimistic, only that I'm not overly pessimistic. China is perhaps finally facing some of the internal contradictions in its own economy, and may slow somewhat. Hard to say. In any case, they are to be respected. A very serious and now very outward-looking civilization. Strategically, I'd say they're more on the ball than we are. They've discipline and are playing a long game.
I don't see China invading Taiwan. An invasion would severely disrupt trade with America and Europe. Trade with America and Europe is vital to China. I don't even think China has the logistics to launch an army 100 miles off its coast.
It seems they would face serious troubles if they tried it now, at least according to analysts I trust. But they keep preparing.
You're definitely right about the impact it would have on them. This is what makes it entirely different from Russia invading Ukraine. Russia doesn't need global customers (aside from oil) to stay afloat. China does.
You know what’s crazy? Ursula has SEVEN children! Why would a woman with children be actively cheering for the complete destruction of their society and future?
Having thrown off the yoke of Nazism, the left has opted for their own version.
Yes, the American left would do that here. They might even get away with it in some jurisdictions - deep blue cities like Seattle or Portland. I live in Florida, where pro-Palestinian protesters who tried to shut down the entrance to the Port of Miami were arrested and hauled away. Lots of things wrong with the Sunshine State - but there's zero tolerance for left-wing bullsh*t like this.
You credit 'the left" with overthrowing Nazism? That's a bit like crediting the abolitionist movement with ending slavery. (History is more complex than that -- the Lord moves in mysterious ways.)_
This is a prime opportunity for European conservatives to avoid playing the victim. Instead: lawfare. Alinksyite tactics, like forcing these governments to live up to their own much-touted beliefs. Researching the hell out of Antifa supporters, as Rufo did with the Harvard plagiarist, and exposing them, until their peers have no choice but to deal with them.
Conservatives often respond ineffectively: they either play the victim, or fantasize about violence. They also flap their gums a lot in forums that are increasingly designed not to persuade others to join them. I haven't seen the program, but my hope is that this conference isn't just lamentation and useless mutual reassurance, but practical strategizing about how to persuade neighbors, engage in relentless lawfare, ruin enemies, and win politically. At this point the rest is just gum-flapping.
Yes, on two things especially; lawfare and finding Antifa's sponsors. It would not surprise me in the least to eventually discover instances of the terrorists getting access to taxpayer money from left wing politicians, not just donations from certain billionaires.
In a similar vein, why are police allowing anti-Israel protestors to block major roadways here in America? What they are doing is utterly illegal and police should be rounding them up and charging them with the appropriate misdemeanors. Instead, police are using their vehicles to block traffic in order to “protect” the protestors. What is going on? Why is this happening? It all feels so sinister.
What you're seeing is the ginned-up nature of these protests. I speak as one thoroughly convinced the Israelis were way out of line post-Oct. 7, and who also thinks they're leading us by the nose to hold their coat while they go for Iran, a catastrophe if we allow it to happen. But the "protests" are strictly George Floyd-grade outrage. And like George Floyd it's happening because, a) somebody is making it happen; and b) somebody else is allowing it to happen.
This has been true of protests for 20+ years. Friends literally laughed in my face when I told them that Stalinists were behind many of the "anti-war" protests of the Bush era, protests that somehow magically dissolved when Obama was elected. But it was true: groups like International ANSWER orchestrated and funded those "grass roots" protests. I knew someone, the husband of a co-worker, who was literally a hardcore communist, and he was helping organize this crap.
These organizations have morphed with the times and provided funding and logistics for Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter...their aim is always to intimidate, and usually to give the sense that their cause has more grass-roots backing than it really does. And they completely understand that no police department or city government wants video of their officers putting their hands on a bunch of blue-haired cannabis-reeking trust-fund hippies, even if it's fully justified.
I recall how the homeless all apparently found housing on the afternoon of January 20, 1993, if the Washington Post was to be believed. They then got kicked out on the afternoon of January 20, 2001. Found housing again, exactly eight years later. Funny how that rhythm keeps up. At least this is what I surmise from the coverage of homelessness in the press.
Yes. Or how it was totally fine that we were in Iraq and Afghanistan once Obama was elected.
Then we had Occupy Wall Street during the Obama administration, but somehow all the protests focused on banks and Republicans and none of these protests ever made it about the President of the United States at the time....
Having spent a bunch of years chasing my tail in graduate school in English literature and then a bunch more years in that same university town working, I'm well acquainted with the kind of activists who staff these protests. They take care of their own. That's what leads people on the outside to think that Soros is behind everything. No, or not necessarily, although I'm sure SOME Soros money has found its way to such people. Rather, a lot of it is just garden-variety organizing and passing-along of tips and how-tos and don't-dos and watch-out-fors. Mostly, the resource these people have is TIME and the brains to organize and to know what they want, which is the utter elimination of anything smacking of conservatism or the right or, frankly, of anything of tradition that can be regarded as supporting what they see as whiteness or capitalism or any version of these in combination. Fighting these people is damned hard because they are just ordinary people who look like they're only involved in church bake sales when they plan protests. And church bake sales may indeed be the locales of such planning, depending on the church.
You've encouraged me today to do my little bit on the right, because it just so happens that I have time.
As for the left taking care of their own, I think my most important role in the tiny corner where I speak up is encouraging the people who are really good at it. People on the right need friends and supporters too.
I think you're right that some of them are ordinary people who are just picking up the message from elsewhere, but a lot of this stuff really is hugely funded from the outside.
The hooligans and vandals who set cars on fire and broke windows during Trump's inauguration all got off with no charges because left-wing organizations paid for their legal defenses and told them all to stick together in solidarity. Bailing out protesters who are legitimately arrested and providing them with lawyers, money, lodging, and other support is the
One such organization in D.C. is the Dead City Legal Posse.
I was able to find their 2018 IRS 990 form through Pro Publica, and their treasurer is a Minnesota activist who must be funding things with personal wealth, because she's been a professional anarchist and activist for decades. It may not all be Soros money, but there are lots of aging trust-fund hippies out there trying to expiate their guilt by funding the protest industry, and the conservative press has utterly failed during my entire adult lifetime to cover their activities and hold them up to scrutiny.
To be fair why shouldn't Occupy Wall Street focus on the banks? The Great Recession wasn't Bush's or Obama's fault (Obama was just a senator when real estate came a-cropper in 2007-08). Bad lending practices were at the root of the crisis, though that was a bit more dispersed throughout the whole economy than just on Wall Street.
For once I agree with you. I've long thought that it was too bad that Occupy and the Tea Party (the early version before the GOP co-opted it) didn't sit down and compare notes The timing didn't match up but it would have been very interesting to see left- and right-wing populists in conversation.
The extent of Communist dominance in education, in entertainment, in publishing, you name it, from the '30s on is hardly an untold story. It's more like a forgotten story. It's very difficult to believe that all these people (and their children) simply became "good Americans". It's far more likely that the network stayed in place, waiting for a jolt of juice to bring it back to life.
Occupy Wall Street was far too stoned to intimidate a mouse. The worst the gang in Baltimore did was bang on drums arhythmically while someone strummed an out-of-tune guitar.
I had to be in New York on other business anyway so I acutally went to see Occupy Wall Street personally. If people were stoned they were keeping it under wraps. I overheard on of the NYPD telling a couple that had also just come to see that if you talked to 6 people there you'd find 6 causes.
I passed our Baltimore gang daily going to and from work. Well, mainly from late in the afternoon; early in the morning they were slumbering in their tents. Some days you could high breathing the fumes from their encampment.
Similar: people bringing food/blankets to the Canadian truckers during their protests were arrested, but the cops themselves were bringing food/blankets to the Canadian anti-Israel protestors
The New Statesman article is correct - this is a gift to European conservatism. The European left should have wrapped it up and put a bow on it. And I hope that reports that the mayor of Brussels actually bowed to the demands of Antifa will finally shut everyone up who insists "There is no Antifa!"
Not so sure. It's perfectly plausible that these Burgomeister Meisterburgers came up with this on their own, but it's equally plausible that somebody who works for Ursula at least stirred the pot.
Belgium has a rather odd governmental system, to say the least. The lowest level of it are the “communes”, the municipalities, which are headed by a Mayor, who is responsible for executing the laws and maintaining public order in the municipality. I believe Belgium has federal police and local police, and that the local police report to their Chief, who reports to the Mayor of the Municipality. So very different from most other places.
Between the municipalities and the national government lie layers of structure (provinces and then linguistic “regions”, and so on) which are, again, unique to Belgium and very … odd.
Just to clarify — “municipality” isn’t a city, like it often means in English. It’s a district of a city. So each district has its own Mayor and its own Police (I think some may cover two districts in some cases).
Yes. Does anybody remember when the Irish turned down the Lisbon Treaty? This was in 2008. Brussels took a deep breath and told them to try again and get it right this time. That's when my eyes were opened.
"How dare you ruin our democracy by voting the wrong way? Do you think it's your democracy or something? No—as we keep telling you, it is our democracy."
From a certain angle, Belgium has been the canary in the coal mine and the crossroads of European history. It is too early to say, if this is just distant lighting or an imminent gathering storm.
What is Belgium, after all? An abortion of history, after all. It used to be called the Spanish Netherlands, a property owned by their Hapsburg lords in Spain. Dutch Flemish northerners, and French Walloon Roman Catholics in the south.
The chief contribution of Belgium for humanity happened at Waterloo.
The Bee Gees , from Australia, made a song about this in 1970. In their LP “Trafalgar “
No worries kids today, almost all of The Bee Gees are gone now.
Ther other infamous and disgusting event was the Somme in WW1. Look it up.
Which ones? Walloons or Flemish? I truly do not know. One thing that i do know, is that the world will know us by our love for each other. Christians should love each other and then love other folks. I understand that it hard to do. Belgium was a false creation of the Hapsburg Empire.
I am a member of a Dutch Reformed church. I am of English and Viking blood lines. No worries. We are all human beings, and all made in the image of God Almighty. Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
Belgium came to be as a buffer between France and the different German states. Prussia crushed France in 1870 without going through Belgium. Victory led to a united Germany. Germany decided to go through Belgium in 1914 to defeat France and that got Britain into World War One. That led to Germany's defeat. The von Schlieffen Plan ended up being self-defeating but only barely. Had Germany not attacked Belgium, they probably would have won the war. But the arrogance of the German General Staff got the better of them. Also, the Germans didn't expect Britain to field such a large army so quickly. Many Germans didn't expect Britain to come to Belgium's assistance after the German attack.
Belgium got the worst of everything in WW1, and this war was the most important event in world history in the last 250 years. The Somme was literally hell on earth. WW1 was the graveyard of many empires.
"That led to Germany's defeat. The von Schlieffen Plan ended up being self-defeating but only barely. Had Germany not attacked Belgium, they probably would have won the war."
I agree - but if the Germans had stuck to the original version of the Plan, which involved invading the Netherlands as well as Belgium, and sending their main thrust into France down along the seacoast so as to encircle Paris counterclockwise and prevent British troops from reaching France i time to make a difference to the outcome, they might have won as well.
One of my high moments in my life was to visit El Prado in Madrid. This is where the Dutch Masters are placed, the greatest artists of the 1500’s and then came El Goya , to present the evils of napoleon’s empire. Saturn eating his children is frightening to anyone. Culture matters. Art matters.
The United States of America, has a Constitutional Republic, if we can keep it, “Benjamin Franklin “. If we can keep it. We have never been even one second, a democracy, aka , rule by mob laws. I hope that never happens.
"the alliance between the Islamists and the political left"
The Left has convinced itself that the Right is all illiberal, white Nazis, so they ally themselves with illiberal, Muslim Nazis and pat themselves on the back for their inclusiveness. It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
I never thought I would live to see Houllebecq's alliance in Submission come true in real life.
Well after reading that complaint I am definitely more generally a "Euroskeptic," and more specifically a "Belgo-skeptic." Interesting that these places seem ok with letting Muslims remain "ethically conservative" and true to their "national or ethnic affinities," but native European Christians are dangerous if they are ethically conservative and ethnically conscious. Could part of this be that ethical conservatism preserves the birth rate and helps to make for healthier families and communities with shared ideals and commitments? If I was an Islamist looking to take over a continent I'd certainly want Christians (whether native or not) in my country to have abortions and raise dysfunctional kids, and I would do everything I could to support that.
Seems to me that one explanation is fear. If you're so afraid that one large group will explode, riot, and kill that you'll do anything to stop it, then that anything includes squashing all small groups that might oppose that large group.
The unifying element is anti-Christianity. If you start with the assumption that the prime goal of the Machine is the destruction of traditional Christianity, all of its actions makes sense.
I am absolutely euro skeptic. They need to defend themselves fully now and stop being parasites like they have been for the last 80 years. I don’t give a rats’ nuts if Russia attacks them. Not our problem. Learn some Russian language dudes. I don’t think that Russia has enough young men to attack anyone. Why don’t we ZERO out all funding for the defense of Europe and zero out ALL funding and financial contributions right down to zero dollars today, and Ukraine today? To defend them even one more day? And defend our own borders? Prove me wrong if you are able.
I agree. NATO should have been transformed in the mid-90s into a European defense zone inclusive of Russia and the other former states of the USSR. Russia should have been made part of the European Union along with Ukraine.
Amen brother. Russia is a Christian nation with very bad leaders. Similar to the USA.
The USA is the cause of the Ukraine War. We should have done exactly what you suggested. Instead the extreme greed and lust for power by our corrupt leadership drove us to where we are now.
Ol' Vladimir Lenin would be proud. "The soundest strategy in war is to postpone operations until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders the delivery of the mortal blow both possible and easy," once said the Great Embalmed One.
They are provoking, provoking and provoking, hoping for retaliation. Rod hitch your britches up and wade into the fray like a man with conviction. It ain't going away.
Lenin was allegedly quoted as calling for the "destruction of the administrative state", but I think a better translation would be "capturing the administrative state", which is exactly what's happening in the West today.
I'm disgusted but not surprised. If it's any comfort, Rod, I think being called names by The Guardian really ought to be considered a badge of honor. Anyone held in high regard by the NTACs who write for that latter day Stalinist fan fiction site ought to reconsider their life choices.
It appears there are differences between Erdogan and the Grey Wolves. Also, nothing came up fo rme when researching Kir ties to Erdogan. Source of what was heard? Research needed?
What Kir did today was horrible. I monitored much of the day and posted support on the last thread, which is now old.
Nobody knows what really happened, but there is a theory that the KGB in 1981 used the Grey Wolves as a cutout to assassinate John Paul II. Agca, the shooter, certainly had links to the Grey Wolves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_%C3%87atl%C4%B1
I thought it was well established that the shooting of JPII was a Soviet hit even if the exact details were a bit murky.
Nothing's "established". I believe you to be correct, but it's not a fact until it's a fact.
Correct. Nothing is established. I recall an article about JP II having a personal meeting with Agca in prison some years later. There was no official report of what they said to each other, but the article speculated circumstantially, and plausibly, that the hit was ordered by Ayatollah Khomeini's regime in Iran. That's not established either.
Actually there are photos of that meeting between JJPII and Agca. A priest to whom 30 years ago I used to tell my confession had it on the wall of his office.
Too many people don't know what constitutes a fact. And even in history there is as much art as science.
KGB was the instigator
Bulgarian secret service the operative
Grey Wolves the perpetrator
Giuseppe, you forgot to include Putin. Although he was a lowly KGB agent at the time, he must have been involved somehow. Judo lessons for Agca?
Is that humor?
As was mentioned above, nothing's established. The KGB does not have a track record for taking out world leaders (that's the purview of our own CIA). Sure, the Soviets have been known to eliminate dissidents or terrorists, like when the KGB caught up with Stepan Bandera in Munich in 1959, but I just don't see Moscow orchestrating the assassination of the spiritual leader of one billion Catholics.
You're talking about the Soviet Union in its last spasm of aggression before the rot brought it down. I'm surprised to hear there's even any doubt about Soviet involvement- It's been common knowledge since the 80s. Apparently Putin's propagandists are spreading disinformatsiya to whitewash the Soviet record. What next Springtime for Stalin?
Everything was planned to achieve plausible deniability
Stabbing lessons from OJ?
Well, that was an indictment presented in court, but as I recall the evidence was lacking to sustain it.
Rod, your reporting on what's going on there is much appreciated. Stay safe, but also stay strong!!
How does the concern about Euroskepticism compare to "state's rights" in the US, particularly earlier in the Republic?
Well, people were very skeptical of a strong federal government, which is why Hamilton and Madison and Jay had to work so hard to make the case in the Federalist Papers. But apparently the Articles of Confederation were also not sustainable, and something needed to be done at that time.
How does it compare? I don't know; it seems like a very different historical context.
The Articles of Confederation stated the union was perpetual. The lack of that word in the Constitution was not on purpose.
Words like that seem aspirational, though, since it is a political question: a union hangs together until it doesn't. We can't just legally mandate that it does so forever.
Of course such things can be legally mandated. It’s the enforcement of the mandate that’s always problematic. ;-)
I legally mandate that I'm a millionaire. There! . . . Wait a second, nothing happened.
Ha! You didn't enforce your mandate, obviously! I'm sure most financial planners would be happy to help you 'enforce' it over the years to come, though you will make the people who want you to spend your wealth most unhappy.
Well, European countries really are nations with their own histories, languages etc. US states are not, even if one plays up some regional cultural differences along the "Albion's Seed" lines.
As Steinbeck says in *Travels with Charley*, though, Texas could be a proper nation.
as a Texan and as a Steinbeck fan, I wholly endorse this statement.
Texas failed in its brief stint as a nation. It was bankrupt and about to be reconquered by Santa Ana when it fell like a fainting bride in James K Polk's embrace.
Nevertheless, the spirit is here to support actual nationhood: people are Texan in a different way from how they're Kansan or Alabaman.
Even in tiny Maryland, the cultures of Baltimore City, white and black, are radically different than the rural cultures of the Eastern Shore and the mountainous West. The quintessential man of old Baltimore, William Donald Schaeffer, lovingly called the Eastern Shore "the shithouse side of the Chesapeake" after he lost the Eastern Shore in his re-election campaign in 1990. Ironically, Schaeffer's culture is dead within the city where he grew up and became mayor.
There was an interesting book about Maryland's Southern culture but forgot the name. The guitarist Danny Gatton seem to exemplify this culture.
Honestly I think both Texas and California should be nations unto themselves. (In case somebody is a sloppy reader, two different countries, not in any kind of arrangement with eachother)
Apparently that new movie *Civil War* involves an alliance between California and Texas?—and as a Texan, I find myself almost insulted by that premise.
There's people in the UP of Michigan who support becoming a separate state-- but it's not economically viable.
Don't people in eastern Oregon wanna join Idaho or something?
Especially since they all have to move to Wisconsin to find work. You can recognize them by their bumper stickers, "Up da UP" and "Used to be a Youper, but now I keeps my ass down here." I used to think those were West Indian slogans, but eventually learned what it was about. "Down here" was a giveaway of course.
Remember the Alamo. , yee hawwwww
Some US states could be seen as having independent histories. There's the South, of course. There are also Utah, Alaska and Hawaii. The South West a bit, too.
Most European nations don't really have the long histories of nationhood that tends to be claimed.
I don't want to overstate my case, though.
My point was that European nations have unique languages, cultures etc., That's not true of US states (it comes closest with Hawaii, but the native people are a small minority there these days)
States strongly differed on religion and culture, and in close proximity with one another. Rod's home of Louisiana still has a few Cajun speakers, a couple of centuries after the Louisiana purchase and long after statehood. If the differences between the states wasn't as substantial as the differences between the EU member states are, and this I believe in some ways to be true, then shouldn't Europe be at the same risk for breakup or even civil war that the US was? I will add that there is a unifying culture and religion, wokeism, that controls the ruling class in most European countries. Eventually these woke idiots will be outnumbered by Muslims. I've been aware of this inevitable outcome since Mark Steyn wrote America Alone almost 20 years ago. If anything, everything is much worse than he foresaw.
Re: States strongly differed on religion and culture, and in close proximity
Compared to Europe, the differences were minimal. Louisiana did have a distinct ethnic minority-- as did New York with its original Dutch population (many of whom still spoke Dutch as late as 1800). Both groups have long since been Americanized and speak English, though Cajun at least is still found, albeit with only bilingual speakers. It's going the same way as most Native American languages have.
Martin Van Buren grew up speaking Dutch. In my opinion the famous New Yawk accent derives from Dutch.
The Dutch, but also a mixture of German and Irish, with some Italian and Jewish influence thrown in. I can still tell the difference between the New York accents of those with Italian backgrounds from those of Irish and Jewish backgrounds. But I don't want to annoy anyone with examples, lol.
It doesn't. Europe was a collection of sovereign nations, some of which danced around some kind of federation. The American colonies were all British dependencies, couldn't have won independence without unified action and a national army and navy, realized they couldn't stand on their own, and entered into a "more perfect union" virtually from the beginning. Except for the original 13, and Vermont (which was a special case in many ways), all other states were formed from national territory by an act of congress. Which European nation was formed by an act of the Euro parliament?
Welcome in real Europe. It is not bad only in society, but also in churches. No support for people, who would like to live not vy lies.
"This is what the European Left will do to all of us." And the U. S. Democrat Left if they get enough power.
I thought we defeated Nazism and Communism in Europe. Maybe not as completely as we thought.
Think of it as a burst internal cyst. What was once localized has now poisoned the entire system.
Perhaps they're starting to overplay their hand; evil in its hubris always does, sooner or later.
Yes. I pray this is a Psalm 9:15-16 moment.
Hope you are correct!
I don't think you can separate the excesses of the looney left from military opportunism of China, Russia, Iran, et al. I'm not so conspiracy minded as to say that the crazy was some great psy-op. It might be. But regardless of where it originated, it stands as one hell of an opportunity for our adversaries to destabilize both the government and what tatters remain of the social fabric. What better time to wage your wars of aggression when your enemies are [sometimes literally] shooting each other?
I'm actually deeply concerned that the left will overplay their hand not because of what it means for liberty, but because we might then get some real, disciplined blowback from the moderates and center right. When that happens, China/Russia, etc. will recognize that their window of opportunity is starting to close. God only knows what desperate act they'll try to pull off then.
We need to get off our dependence on Taiwan's semiconductor chips. (Until I learned about that, it was hard to understand why we're so worked up about what happens there.)
Totally, but that's not the least of our worries. The US is decline. The sharks smell blood in the water. We did this to ourselves with decades of bone headed spending, the abstraction of our economy, the shedding of stabilizing values, and the waging of wars of empire. It's a deep hole and the sides are sand. I don't know how you climb out of it.
Damn I'm quite the optimist!
One likely outcome is just the return of a multipolar world, which is fairly normal in historical terms. To some extent, we might just be spoiled and treat it as the end of the world that we'll no longer be at liberty to go galavanting on a whim to every corner of the earth. And also, we're still bounded by oceans to the east and west, along with moose and maple syrup to the north, so it could be worse.
I just don't see BRICs nations stopping at multipolar. We didn't after all.
In relative decline yes-- as other nations come up. And IMO that's a good thing. We are not in absolute decline. As I have pointed out several times here we are now the world's leading energy producer bar none. Our agriculture makes us one of the leading food producers. We may be a bit below replacement, but our demographics are healthier than other European nations' and far more so than Japan's or Korea's-- or China's. And even with recent declines in religious membership we're still better than Europe on that stat too. Where we fall short-- inequality, for example-- we've long been in dumps.
On the chips, there’s really no way the US domestic industry will catch up with Taiwan. They are a couple years ahead, which makes a massive difference. (To our military for one, which needs the most advanced chips to stay on top.) Taiwan’s lead is down to work ethic inside the industry here. We won’t catch up. When we getto where Taiwan is now, they will be two more years ahead.
On “getting worked up,” well, Taiwan is a very successful democracy of 23 million people—i.e. the size of Australia. It isn’t a “small island” or city state. Should the US just let it get taken by the CCP? Aside from being a very serious blow to any claims we have of defending democracies, there would be huge practical fallout. Not just chips either, bad as that loss would be. Most analysts see that doing so would show our other allies in Asia that we’re willing to let China become hegemon. And they’d make diplomatic/economic adjustments to suit this new Asian order.
The best thing is to do everything possible to maintain the status quo. Which means convincing Beijing that invasion would be very very risky.
My assumption here is that we aren't going to be able to project a global sphere of influence forever, and that we're eventually gonna have to "let" a lot of things happen, because we won't have the power to stop them. So we sort of need a contingency plan.
That's interesting to know about the scale of Taiwan, though—I didn't realize that.
Our problem is that how we've projected this influence has mainly been a matter of profit-taking for the military-industrial complex. Cf. Iraq, Afghanistan. A lot of Americans will say: "The Bush Administration! So DUMB. How could they imagine they'd create a stable democracy in Sunni/Shia divided Mesopotamia!" These people don't get it. Those who wanted the Iraq war didn't really care whether the mission was successful. Only that the mission could be billed to the taxpayers.
The reason we don't win wars is because winning wars isn't the point. Billing the taxpayers is.
We're still the world's most powerful economy. Rather surprisingly, in my view. And we have the innovation on most fronts. If Washington can figure out a way to deploy and profit from our might without simply throwing it into dumpsters (as with the Mideast) we could project influence well beyond any contender for years to come.
I'm not saying I'm optimistic, only that I'm not overly pessimistic. China is perhaps finally facing some of the internal contradictions in its own economy, and may slow somewhat. Hard to say. In any case, they are to be respected. A very serious and now very outward-looking civilization. Strategically, I'd say they're more on the ball than we are. They've discipline and are playing a long game.
I don't see China invading Taiwan. An invasion would severely disrupt trade with America and Europe. Trade with America and Europe is vital to China. I don't even think China has the logistics to launch an army 100 miles off its coast.
It seems they would face serious troubles if they tried it now, at least according to analysts I trust. But they keep preparing.
You're definitely right about the impact it would have on them. This is what makes it entirely different from Russia invading Ukraine. Russia doesn't need global customers (aside from oil) to stay afloat. China does.
Women usually
—overplay their hands
—reveal their power levels too soon and too eagerly
—are bad at the long game
—cut their noses off to spite their faces
—see also: Eve
This is womanish thinking in action
The woman in question here would be Ursula von der Leyen?
I mean the European system in general
You know what’s crazy? Ursula has SEVEN children! Why would a woman with children be actively cheering for the complete destruction of their society and future?
Maybe she's a true believer and has actually snorted her own supply.
Dear lady!
Having thrown off the yoke of Nazism, the left has opted for their own version.
Yes, the American left would do that here. They might even get away with it in some jurisdictions - deep blue cities like Seattle or Portland. I live in Florida, where pro-Palestinian protesters who tried to shut down the entrance to the Port of Miami were arrested and hauled away. Lots of things wrong with the Sunshine State - but there's zero tolerance for left-wing bullsh*t like this.
You credit 'the left" with overthrowing Nazism? That's a bit like crediting the abolitionist movement with ending slavery. (History is more complex than that -- the Lord moves in mysterious ways.)_
This is a prime opportunity for European conservatives to avoid playing the victim. Instead: lawfare. Alinksyite tactics, like forcing these governments to live up to their own much-touted beliefs. Researching the hell out of Antifa supporters, as Rufo did with the Harvard plagiarist, and exposing them, until their peers have no choice but to deal with them.
Conservatives often respond ineffectively: they either play the victim, or fantasize about violence. They also flap their gums a lot in forums that are increasingly designed not to persuade others to join them. I haven't seen the program, but my hope is that this conference isn't just lamentation and useless mutual reassurance, but practical strategizing about how to persuade neighbors, engage in relentless lawfare, ruin enemies, and win politically. At this point the rest is just gum-flapping.
We do a lot of gumflapping here. I am as guilty as anyone.
Yes, on two things especially; lawfare and finding Antifa's sponsors. It would not surprise me in the least to eventually discover instances of the terrorists getting access to taxpayer money from left wing politicians, not just donations from certain billionaires.
The creeping new USSR, except now it's a blend of leftist insanity in league with Islamic opportunism. I don't think this will end well for Europe.
In a similar vein, why are police allowing anti-Israel protestors to block major roadways here in America? What they are doing is utterly illegal and police should be rounding them up and charging them with the appropriate misdemeanors. Instead, police are using their vehicles to block traffic in order to “protect” the protestors. What is going on? Why is this happening? It all feels so sinister.
What you're seeing is the ginned-up nature of these protests. I speak as one thoroughly convinced the Israelis were way out of line post-Oct. 7, and who also thinks they're leading us by the nose to hold their coat while they go for Iran, a catastrophe if we allow it to happen. But the "protests" are strictly George Floyd-grade outrage. And like George Floyd it's happening because, a) somebody is making it happen; and b) somebody else is allowing it to happen.
I suppose it's important to add that there's no need to gin up the antisemitism among the BIPOC.
This has been true of protests for 20+ years. Friends literally laughed in my face when I told them that Stalinists were behind many of the "anti-war" protests of the Bush era, protests that somehow magically dissolved when Obama was elected. But it was true: groups like International ANSWER orchestrated and funded those "grass roots" protests. I knew someone, the husband of a co-worker, who was literally a hardcore communist, and he was helping organize this crap.
These organizations have morphed with the times and provided funding and logistics for Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter...their aim is always to intimidate, and usually to give the sense that their cause has more grass-roots backing than it really does. And they completely understand that no police department or city government wants video of their officers putting their hands on a bunch of blue-haired cannabis-reeking trust-fund hippies, even if it's fully justified.
I recall how the homeless all apparently found housing on the afternoon of January 20, 1993, if the Washington Post was to be believed. They then got kicked out on the afternoon of January 20, 2001. Found housing again, exactly eight years later. Funny how that rhythm keeps up. At least this is what I surmise from the coverage of homelessness in the press.
Yes. Or how it was totally fine that we were in Iraq and Afghanistan once Obama was elected.
Then we had Occupy Wall Street during the Obama administration, but somehow all the protests focused on banks and Republicans and none of these protests ever made it about the President of the United States at the time....
Having spent a bunch of years chasing my tail in graduate school in English literature and then a bunch more years in that same university town working, I'm well acquainted with the kind of activists who staff these protests. They take care of their own. That's what leads people on the outside to think that Soros is behind everything. No, or not necessarily, although I'm sure SOME Soros money has found its way to such people. Rather, a lot of it is just garden-variety organizing and passing-along of tips and how-tos and don't-dos and watch-out-fors. Mostly, the resource these people have is TIME and the brains to organize and to know what they want, which is the utter elimination of anything smacking of conservatism or the right or, frankly, of anything of tradition that can be regarded as supporting what they see as whiteness or capitalism or any version of these in combination. Fighting these people is damned hard because they are just ordinary people who look like they're only involved in church bake sales when they plan protests. And church bake sales may indeed be the locales of such planning, depending on the church.
You've encouraged me today to do my little bit on the right, because it just so happens that I have time.
As for the left taking care of their own, I think my most important role in the tiny corner where I speak up is encouraging the people who are really good at it. People on the right need friends and supporters too.
I think you're right that some of them are ordinary people who are just picking up the message from elsewhere, but a lot of this stuff really is hugely funded from the outside.
The hooligans and vandals who set cars on fire and broke windows during Trump's inauguration all got off with no charges because left-wing organizations paid for their legal defenses and told them all to stick together in solidarity. Bailing out protesters who are legitimately arrested and providing them with lawyers, money, lodging, and other support is the
One such organization in D.C. is the Dead City Legal Posse.
https://actionnetwork.org/groups/dead-city-legal-posse
I was able to find their 2018 IRS 990 form through Pro Publica, and their treasurer is a Minnesota activist who must be funding things with personal wealth, because she's been a professional anarchist and activist for decades. It may not all be Soros money, but there are lots of aging trust-fund hippies out there trying to expiate their guilt by funding the protest industry, and the conservative press has utterly failed during my entire adult lifetime to cover their activities and hold them up to scrutiny.
To be fair why shouldn't Occupy Wall Street focus on the banks? The Great Recession wasn't Bush's or Obama's fault (Obama was just a senator when real estate came a-cropper in 2007-08). Bad lending practices were at the root of the crisis, though that was a bit more dispersed throughout the whole economy than just on Wall Street.
For once I agree with you. I've long thought that it was too bad that Occupy and the Tea Party (the early version before the GOP co-opted it) didn't sit down and compare notes The timing didn't match up but it would have been very interesting to see left- and right-wing populists in conversation.
The bad lending was encouraged by government equity initiatives.
The extent of Communist dominance in education, in entertainment, in publishing, you name it, from the '30s on is hardly an untold story. It's more like a forgotten story. It's very difficult to believe that all these people (and their children) simply became "good Americans". It's far more likely that the network stayed in place, waiting for a jolt of juice to bring it back to life.
Clinton was a wizard on the homeless front.
Occupy Wall Street was far too stoned to intimidate a mouse. The worst the gang in Baltimore did was bang on drums arhythmically while someone strummed an out-of-tune guitar.
I saw Occupy Wall Street open for The Who in 1993.
I had to be in New York on other business anyway so I acutally went to see Occupy Wall Street personally. If people were stoned they were keeping it under wraps. I overheard on of the NYPD telling a couple that had also just come to see that if you talked to 6 people there you'd find 6 causes.
I passed our Baltimore gang daily going to and from work. Well, mainly from late in the afternoon; early in the morning they were slumbering in their tents. Some days you could high breathing the fumes from their encampment.
Similar: people bringing food/blankets to the Canadian truckers during their protests were arrested, but the cops themselves were bringing food/blankets to the Canadian anti-Israel protestors
The anti-Israel protestors were Trudeau-approved.
The New Statesman article is correct - this is a gift to European conservatism. The European left should have wrapped it up and put a bow on it. And I hope that reports that the mayor of Brussels actually bowed to the demands of Antifa will finally shut everyone up who insists "There is no Antifa!"
Not so sure. It's perfectly plausible that these Burgomeister Meisterburgers came up with this on their own, but it's equally plausible that somebody who works for Ursula at least stirred the pot.
I'd be eager to see how the gendarmerie in Belgium works--who do those guys in pisscutters work for?
Belgium has a rather odd governmental system, to say the least. The lowest level of it are the “communes”, the municipalities, which are headed by a Mayor, who is responsible for executing the laws and maintaining public order in the municipality. I believe Belgium has federal police and local police, and that the local police report to their Chief, who reports to the Mayor of the Municipality. So very different from most other places.
Between the municipalities and the national government lie layers of structure (provinces and then linguistic “regions”, and so on) which are, again, unique to Belgium and very … odd.
Just to clarify — “municipality” isn’t a city, like it often means in English. It’s a district of a city. So each district has its own Mayor and its own Police (I think some may cover two districts in some cases).
It would be helpful if the Belgian police went at Rod Dreher and company with rubber truncheons. When are the European Union elections?
Unexpected election results would just br overturned.
Yes. Does anybody remember when the Irish turned down the Lisbon Treaty? This was in 2008. Brussels took a deep breath and told them to try again and get it right this time. That's when my eyes were opened.
Vote right, damn it!
"How dare you ruin our democracy by voting the wrong way? Do you think it's your democracy or something? No—as we keep telling you, it is our democracy."
From a certain angle, Belgium has been the canary in the coal mine and the crossroads of European history. It is too early to say, if this is just distant lighting or an imminent gathering storm.
What is Belgium, after all? An abortion of history, after all. It used to be called the Spanish Netherlands, a property owned by their Hapsburg lords in Spain. Dutch Flemish northerners, and French Walloon Roman Catholics in the south.
The chief contribution of Belgium for humanity happened at Waterloo.
The Bee Gees , from Australia, made a song about this in 1970. In their LP “Trafalgar “
No worries kids today, almost all of The Bee Gees are gone now.
Ther other infamous and disgusting event was the Somme in WW1. Look it up.
True. Since 1830 being too weak to defend itself created a lot of trouble among the nations. The Dutch in Belgium are also generally Roman Catholic.
Which ones? Walloons or Flemish? I truly do not know. One thing that i do know, is that the world will know us by our love for each other. Christians should love each other and then love other folks. I understand that it hard to do. Belgium was a false creation of the Hapsburg Empire.
True
I am a member of a Dutch Reformed church. I am of English and Viking blood lines. No worries. We are all human beings, and all made in the image of God Almighty. Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
It seems that Dutch Christians prosper very well in America now and for a long time now. I love them very much, right until this very moment.
It seems you have a small inkling of history. Pursue that for your own sanity. The more you understand then the more gentle and loving you can be….
Belgium came to be as a buffer between France and the different German states. Prussia crushed France in 1870 without going through Belgium. Victory led to a united Germany. Germany decided to go through Belgium in 1914 to defeat France and that got Britain into World War One. That led to Germany's defeat. The von Schlieffen Plan ended up being self-defeating but only barely. Had Germany not attacked Belgium, they probably would have won the war. But the arrogance of the German General Staff got the better of them. Also, the Germans didn't expect Britain to field such a large army so quickly. Many Germans didn't expect Britain to come to Belgium's assistance after the German attack.
Belgium got the worst of everything in WW1, and this war was the most important event in world history in the last 250 years. The Somme was literally hell on earth. WW1 was the graveyard of many empires.
Yet King Albert kept his army out of the fruitless struggle in No Man's Land.
"That led to Germany's defeat. The von Schlieffen Plan ended up being self-defeating but only barely. Had Germany not attacked Belgium, they probably would have won the war."
I agree - but if the Germans had stuck to the original version of the Plan, which involved invading the Netherlands as well as Belgium, and sending their main thrust into France down along the seacoast so as to encircle Paris counterclockwise and prevent British troops from reaching France i time to make a difference to the outcome, they might have won as well.
Germany thought they could keep the US out of the war, in which case Britain would be isolated, even if not successfully invaded.
One of my high moments in my life was to visit El Prado in Madrid. This is where the Dutch Masters are placed, the greatest artists of the 1500’s and then came El Goya , to present the evils of napoleon’s empire. Saturn eating his children is frightening to anyone. Culture matters. Art matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son
I am truly sorry to see this happening in Europe, and to you in particular.
The big takeaway for me: this is *exactly* what the technocratic elitists mean when they use that gutted carcass of a phrase, "our democracy".
Well, it is theirs, isn't it. Democracy, I mean.
Yes, they have the right to decide and so it is their Democracy. We, on the other hand, have the duty to obey.
The United States of America, has a Constitutional Republic, if we can keep it, “Benjamin Franklin “. If we can keep it. We have never been even one second, a democracy, aka , rule by mob laws. I hope that never happens.
"the alliance between the Islamists and the political left"
The Left has convinced itself that the Right is all illiberal, white Nazis, so they ally themselves with illiberal, Muslim Nazis and pat themselves on the back for their inclusiveness. It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
I never thought I would live to see Houllebecq's alliance in Submission come true in real life.
You didn’t? It’s been happening for some time now. Look at the Gaza protests in the US.
Islam is purely satanic. And nothing else. Allah is a demon and Mohammed is demon possessed. Next question please.
Well after reading that complaint I am definitely more generally a "Euroskeptic," and more specifically a "Belgo-skeptic." Interesting that these places seem ok with letting Muslims remain "ethically conservative" and true to their "national or ethnic affinities," but native European Christians are dangerous if they are ethically conservative and ethnically conscious. Could part of this be that ethical conservatism preserves the birth rate and helps to make for healthier families and communities with shared ideals and commitments? If I was an Islamist looking to take over a continent I'd certainly want Christians (whether native or not) in my country to have abortions and raise dysfunctional kids, and I would do everything I could to support that.
Seems to me that one explanation is fear. If you're so afraid that one large group will explode, riot, and kill that you'll do anything to stop it, then that anything includes squashing all small groups that might oppose that large group.
Fear controls people more than any other power. We need to fear God and despise fake people who despise us.
The unifying element is anti-Christianity. If you start with the assumption that the prime goal of the Machine is the destruction of traditional Christianity, all of its actions makes sense.
Yes, I've said it before and I'll say it again. What unites Antifa and Islamists? Hatred of the Logos, the Word-Made-Flesh in Jesus Christ.
This.
I am absolutely euro skeptic. They need to defend themselves fully now and stop being parasites like they have been for the last 80 years. I don’t give a rats’ nuts if Russia attacks them. Not our problem. Learn some Russian language dudes. I don’t think that Russia has enough young men to attack anyone. Why don’t we ZERO out all funding for the defense of Europe and zero out ALL funding and financial contributions right down to zero dollars today, and Ukraine today? To defend them even one more day? And defend our own borders? Prove me wrong if you are able.
I agree. NATO should have been transformed in the mid-90s into a European defense zone inclusive of Russia and the other former states of the USSR. Russia should have been made part of the European Union along with Ukraine.
Amen brother. Russia is a Christian nation with very bad leaders. Similar to the USA.
The USA is the cause of the Ukraine War. We should have done exactly what you suggested. Instead the extreme greed and lust for power by our corrupt leadership drove us to where we are now.
Ol' Vladimir Lenin would be proud. "The soundest strategy in war is to postpone operations until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders the delivery of the mortal blow both possible and easy," once said the Great Embalmed One.
They are provoking, provoking and provoking, hoping for retaliation. Rod hitch your britches up and wade into the fray like a man with conviction. It ain't going away.
Lenin was allegedly quoted as calling for the "destruction of the administrative state", but I think a better translation would be "capturing the administrative state", which is exactly what's happening in the West today.
I'm disgusted but not surprised. If it's any comfort, Rod, I think being called names by The Guardian really ought to be considered a badge of honor. Anyone held in high regard by the NTACs who write for that latter day Stalinist fan fiction site ought to reconsider their life choices.
Interesting article about Kir, of Turkish origins, and what Kir refers to as far-right Muslims
https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels-2/90229/socialist-party-ejects-saint-josse-mayor-over-far-right-meeting-emir-kir-extreme-nationalist-mhp-grey-wolves
It appears there are differences between Erdogan and the Grey Wolves. Also, nothing came up fo rme when researching Kir ties to Erdogan. Source of what was heard? Research needed?
What Kir did today was horrible. I monitored much of the day and posted support on the last thread, which is now old.