EU/NATO=The Illusion of Freedom (Reality:Vassalhood to Washington DC)
Look what these good Western "democracy lovers" are unleashing on the little Orthodox Christian Nation of Georgia right now after the elections didn't go the way DC/EU/NATO wanted it.
The Pro-EU (French Born) President of Georgia (as opposed to the PM, Georgia has a Parliament and this supposedly anti Western government was elected by the Georgian people by a large majority) has called upon "Georgian Schoolchildren" , YES SCHOOLCHILDREN to join the protests in Tblisi which have already taken a violent turn. Thank God the Orthodox Patriarch of Georgia condemned the Western Puppet Georgian President for trying to put children in harms way.
What does the Western Cabal want in Georgia? They want to overthrow the current government in a Maidan (Ukrainian) style coup and plunge the nation into a suicidal war with Russia (opening a second southern front against Russia).
This is the same West (DC led let's not forget) that has just unleashed the Wahhabi Takfiri hordes into Syria (conspiring with Erdogan and Netanyahu) in a renewed attempt to overthrow the government of Bashar Al Assad. Plunging Syria and the entire region into further chaos and endangering the lives of millions especially non-Sunni Syrian minorities. That's Western Liberal Values on display folks. The values of the Devil no less.
It's almost pure evil: (1) high-handed belief that the global masses need direction by the enlightened elite; (2) the most brutal form of capitalism; and (3) LGBT and all the rest of the Sexual Revolution vomit.
I'll probably end up getting deleted if I tie it in with what's happening in Syria, but of course it's far more extreme and bloody there than in Romania.
Some of it’s not too bad, although painting the USA in too good a light. However, it’s highly unlikely that Assad did use chemical weapons. The Syrian regime was moving towards democracy.
It also completely omits Israeli support, I might get deleted for this, but Israeli officials said they would prefer Syria controlled by ISIS than by Iran. Notice that the Wahhabi-extremist groups never attack Israel; their enemies are Shia, Christians, and moderate/secular regimes. Over the last few days, Israel has been bombing Syria in coordination with the Wahhabis.
There's effectively a propaganda lockdown where pointing out what the Jews are doing in regards to Syria and Armenia gets you put in the same camp as the loons cheering the October 7 massacre and calling for the destruction of Israel. Just zero nuance, you're-with-us-or-against-us crap. You either give Israel carte blanche or you're with the Muslims.
I don't know that anything will change regarding this. Christians in this part of the world are foreign exotics (Armenia) or vulnerable minorities (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon), which makes it easy for pro-Israel media to just sweep them under the rug. For their part Muslims make for singularly unsympathetic victims, since you know they'd do 10x worse to the Jews if they could get away with it.
It's really tempting to see this as a theological thing, with weirdo evangelicals in government pushing for their bizarre Israel worship, a writ-large version of this comments section (heh). However, I'm not sure that's the tack when it comes to actual politics. This same pattern repeats in Europe (Ukraine) and East Asia (Taiwan), where allies on the periphery of the American empire take on a grand moral dimension that far outstrips their size and importance, and cannot be satisfied with anything less than a blank check which the imperial mandarins are only too willing to provide.
I think there are several issues that are difficult to disentangle:
1. Theological beliefs about the Jews (whoever they are!) Even some non-Evangelicals seem to accept these heresies.
2. Neocon US-supremacism.
3. Protestant belief that Catholics and Orthodox aren’t really Christian.
4. US celebration of settler societies, due to its history.
5. Western contempt for non-Westerners, tied to the rather odd perception of Israel as Western, so it’s a sort of civilised outpost in a barbarous region.
6. Straightforward racism, combined with ignorance of many Israelis not being white. I think this is the least important component, but the one that the campus demonstrators pick up on.
The economic hard-right is in fact not even hard-right. It is a liberal free market economy. I don’t think Joseph de Maistre or Louis de Bonald or Adam Müller or Friedrich Carl von Savigny or Karl Ludwig von Haller or the Slavophiles (Ivan Kireyevsky, Aleksey Khomyakov and Konstantin Aksakov) would have supported it. At least the majority of them wouldn’t.
They change with time to a certain extent. I guess one could say that socialism is tied to equality, liberalism to freedom and conservatism to tradition.
The ideal of a completely free market economy was a liberal idea born in Britain.
In my country the people you called conservatives in America (who support a fully free market economy and religion / tradition) we called liberal-conservative.
Liberal - because they support a market as free as possible
Conservative - because they support religion and tradition
So Liberal-Conservative.
They are often nice people. They could always point to the US as an example of a very free market and religiosity coexisting together. However as that has fallen apart I suspect there will be less and less of them.
More American than modern. In Germany the fully free market economy is supported only by the small FDP party - a liberal party in the center of Germany’s left-right spectrum.
Except Javier Milei and Janusz Korwin-Mikke, both very eccentric, I cannot recall any right-wing politician outside the US and UK who supports a fully free market economy. Of course I don’t pay attention to most countries so maybe there are more - but they are certainly rare.
No it is not that. Look at Georgia where a high-handed elite just postponed EU membership and the people revolted.
Look at the high-handed elites of Russia and China.
Besides only the US has the most brutal form of capitalism. Most European countries have a strong social safety net. You just don’t know what you are talking about.
Really? My country - Poland - went from a very poor country to a moderately wealthy country. Maybe the Georgian people want to experience the same. Where is the Titanic?
Look at Russia. A country as rich in natural resources as Russia should have a tremendously rich nation. Putin however doesn’t care about that and prefers to keep them poor. Maybe Georgians don’t want to remain as poor as the Russians?
It is also amazing that you describe Georgian people who fled the Bolsheviks to avoid being murdered as simply “French Born”.
I don't know enough about Poland to comment on things there about how the EU has benefited your nation. All I know is when I was in the UK 16 years ago most of the service workers in London were Polish and the UK was also part of the EU at the time. But I do know thousands of Polish soldiers have died in Ukraine (wearing Ukrainian uniforms). If Poland was not so hopelessly (and illogically) anti Russian they could be like Hungary and have it's cake and eat it to. They would be awash in cheap Russian oil and gas while remaining a member of the EU and staying out of the conflict in Ukraine. They didn't do that though. Why? I think Galicia is the reason why. Don't you? Why else would Poland throw in their lot with the very kind of Banderists who butchered thousands of Poles in Volyn? I think Polish designs on Galicia would be the only logical conclusion .
Poles are always very conscious of being between Germany and Russia. As bad as our history with the Ukrainians has been they never ended Poland. Meanwhile two German states (Prussia and Austria) and Russia ended Poland’s existence in 1795. When we regained our existence in 1918 the same thing happened in 1939 - Germany and Russia made a deal and our country was gone.
Adolf Bocheński wrote “Between Germany and Russia” in 1937. It was a book that tried to dispassionately analyze Poland’s international position without moralism and emotion so often present in previous Polish analyses (irrationally evil neighbors attack us for no reason at all). He was also perhaps the only educated Pole who realized that FDR and Churchill are planning to betray us and give us over to Stalin (he was killed in action during the Italian campaign).
So that is the eternal Polish conundrum - how to exist between Germany and Russia. After the War in exile in Paris Jerzy Giedroyć and Juliusz Mieroszewski proposed a solution - the ULB doctrine.
Let’s create an independent Ukraine and Lithuania and Belarus and so have a buffer zone against Russia. That way Germany and Russia won’t be able to make an agreement and destroy us - because there will be Lithuania and Belarus and Ukraine in the way.
So fighting to prevent Russia from absorbing Ukraine is not strange given what happens when we directly border Russia.
Plus Jarosław Kaczyński (the leader of the Polish right-wing) believes Putin murdered his twin brother and 95 other people by blowing up a plane on which they were traveling in 2010.
A lot of Europeans like the EU, just not the migration and cultural policies. It’s murky to know who’s who in the internal fights of another country. Each situation is unique.
The overwhelming majority of Georgians want to join the EU. You can cry about it but it won’t matter. Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be freed from the Russian army. Once Georgia is in the EU as the Georgians want you will cry bitter tears and the Georgians will laugh.
So the Georgian People didn't vote for the current Georgian government? You think the Abkhazians and Ossetians want to be ruled by Georgians after the events of 2008?
South Ossetia is even more laughable than Kosovo. It is unable to exist independently and should be a part of Georgia. On Abkhazia we can have a conversation - as it would be capable of existing without Russia.
The Georgian people voted for the current government but overwhelmingly support joining the EU. The alternative - existing as Russia’s satellite- is unpopular. Understandably given Georgian history.
Murdering Boris Nemtsov is a worse sin than a million same-sex marriages. Refusing to provide medical care for Sergei Magnitsky in prison for gall stones, pancreatitis, and a blocked gall bladder and then ordering him beaten to death is a worse sin than a million same-sex marriages. Poisoning people and throwing them out of windows are worse sins than a million same-sex marriages.
I very closely observed the news (both Western and Russian) during the 2008 war. Georgian troops massacred civilians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Sakashvilli was insane to launch artillery strikes on Russian troops in Abkhazia. The Neocons in the Bush Administration led him to believe he had full American support (and of course that war was about Sakashvilli’s desire for Georgia to join NATO which Russia always rejected for good reason). Thankfully the Georgian Government now (which is in no way Pro Russian is it Anti Western) is much more pragmatic and nearly wants to avoid becoming a second NATO front in for what would be for Georgia a catastrophic war with Russia. Georgia Dream doesn't want to follow Kiev 's lead and who can blame them?
OK but I wonder if they are not missing their chance. Now that Russia is busy elsewhere - now is the time to regain control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Or at least South Ossetia.
I'm sorry. That's insane. Georgia would get destroyed. That's why the Georgian People voted for the current government that you want to see get overthrown in a Tblisi Maidan.
In fact EU could be described as vassalhood of smaller countries to Germany and France. But there is no vassalhood to Washington D.C. In fact both Germany and France refused to join the US in invading Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld attacked them for it and called them “Old Europe” in opposition to eastern “New Europe”.
Germany and France had more independence 20 years ago. That's not the case anymore. Remember Victoria Nuland’s, “Fu#$ the EU!”, who won that one the EU or Washington? The best thing for Europe is good working relations with Russia and peace in Ukraine. No European nation benefits from any of this. This is all to preserve the current US Hegemony and keep the whole charade based on the fiat currency known as the US Dollar from imploding. Remember the deal Russia offered Yanukovich before the Maidan Coup. He said there could be a deal where Ukraine could enter into a Free Trade Agreement with the EU while joining the Eurasian Union. That would have been a win, win, win for Ukraine but the Americans and Brits rejected it because it meant that Ukraine would not be joining NATO.
Oh good grief, the US dollar is no where near imploding! Where does this nonsense come from? Maybe the Bitcoin shysters trying to pump up their Ponzi scheme b y spreading disinformatsiya and bilk the rubes? Whatever weaknesses the dollar has the other major world currencies are worse.
And what's the US economy based on? Do we produce anything anymore? It's based completely on finance banking. As for Bitcoin. I don't trust it. I don't have any money in it, but a good friend of mine who was very savvy with investments and was a day trader had a lot of his money invested in Bitcoin.
Did you know that Rod's hero Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was an unapologetic Russian Nationalist who refused to meet with Boris Yeltsin because he considered him a Washington puppet and a disgrace to Russia but he did meet and shake hands with President Vladimir Putin. What does that tell you?
If you read his book The Russian Question at the end of the 20th Century you would know that Solzhenitsyn was ahead of his time (long before Alexander Dugin) in his idea of a union state between Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. He also was a proponent of Eurasian Sovereignty and was fiercely hostile to NATO after NATO bombed the Orthodox Serbs in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Solzhenitsyn is without a doubt a hero of mine too.
And many of the neo-con crowd are cheering on the "rebels" besieging Damascus. If the "rebels" prevail anticipate a new rush of gore-porn beheadings, flayings, burning alive and other assorted depravities, all cheered on the the Bulwark/Weekly Standard/Dispatch crowd.
Georgian schools teach Orthodox Christianity which probably makes the country a target as well as getting caught up in East vs West part 2. The Cold War sequel, it’s dumber and more dangerous.
Its all plausible, but hard to see clearly through the fog. I am reminded of the father of a long-ago co-worker who traveled on business in post-1990 eastern Europe. He once remarked that CNN could make the half time show at a sporting even look like a popular revolution.
I wouldn't put it past any number of forces to forestall this election. I also wouldn't put it past Russia to be interfering in an election any way they could. I didn't put much stock in "Russian interference" in U.S. elections. No doubt they were stirring the pot, but it all seemed like Spy v. Spy stuff -- finding ways to interfere in each other's operations is what large powers with extensive espionage networks do.
Once upon a time, Poland was an independent kingdom with an elected monarchy. There was a small body of men with noble titles who had the right to vote on the next king. Every larger kingdom or empire, including Sweden, Russia, Austria, Prussia and others expended enormous sums trying to bribe the electors to pick the monarch various external powers favored. Its a hazard, although of a different nature when an entire mass electorate has to be swayed.
Rod is hearing from people on the ground in Romania, but he is hearing from people with a point of view. Is it representative of a majority of Romanians? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm too familiar with how various factions in the USA pontificate that "the people want" whatever it is a given faction is peddling. It can become nauseating. From some of what has been posted here, it sounds like this dark horse candidate may be quite anti-Russian. That would be quite a swirl and eddy if western interests hostile to Russia and favorable to LGBTQWERTY imperialism opposed a candidate who is more anti-Russian than they are because he's going to take down the rainbow flags. But stranger things have happened.
Which brings us to the notion that western agencies have "unleashed the Wahabi Takfiri hordes into Syria." I kind of would have thought by now that these forces were off the list of people to support. But the rise of the Wahabbi was encouraged by the CIA to reduce left-wing influence in the middle east.
Its not a good situation when the choice is Bashar Assad v. the heirs of Osama bin Laden, and Netanyahu is supporting the Islamists... if that is accurate. Its all very cloudy at present.
I've been defending Assad since the "International Community" first set Syria on fire in 2011 seeking to overthrow the Syrian Government like they did to Libya. Assad was a good leader especially for the Christians of Syria who were always protected under his rule. So absolutely I'm defending him. I make no bones about it. I hate the Neocons in Washington. They are the absolute scum of the earth and they're traitors to the Real America the Constitutional Republic.
It's important to note that Lasconi, Georgescu's opponent, has also condemned this ruling.
From the Guardian:
'However, Lasconi, the pro-European candidate, condemned the ruling. “The constitutional court’s decision is illegal, amoral and crushes the very essence of democracy, voting,” she said.'
Not knowing anything about the Romanian candidates motivated me to look at the results of the first round of elections. Lasconi has really no support outside Bucharest. We see in this election the same results as in France and the U.S.: a very large split between the interests of rural and urban voters.
I've read that many of the Romanian diaspora voted for Georgescu. They're not too happy cleaning toilets in Brussels or London. On the other hand, the Moldovan diaspora voted overwhelmingly for the pro-EU/NATO Sandu. Maybe they found a way to have the Eritreans and Afghans clean those same toilets...
Is direct U.S. involvement in Romanian politics and governance a parting gift from the Biden administration? Probably. Will such activities promote long term political stability and prosperity in Romania and peace in the region? Probably not. I haven’t read anything in the U.S. press about recent events in Romania, but so much is happening that I may have overlooked it. January 20 can’t come too soon.
Let's not call it "the Biden Administration." He has never been in charge. More likely part of the puppet masters' efforts to further destabilize the world before Trump comes into office. Thus, further complicating his efforts to undermine their globalizing efforts.
IMO Trump should sign an executive order banning 'process' prosecutions without accusations of non-process crimes. If the FBI ever questioned me about specifics of my past I would quickly be accused of perjury because I would not could not remember specific dates and times. Avoidance of process crimes in many cases requires almost inhuman powers of recollection - it is borderline police state tactics.
Right. The FBI can nail anyone in the country for some sort of crime. For instance, four months ago I paid a man $340 cash for two cords of firewood knowing that the probability was that he would not declare it as income. I can't prove that, however. Am I committing a crime? I don't think so. But the FBI might think otherwise.
1. Economic. The process by which people and goods move easily across borders. Principally, it's an economic concept – the integration of markets, trade and investments with few barriers to slow the flow of products and services between nations.
2. Political. The growth of the worldwide political system, both in size and complexity. That system includes national governments, their governmental and intergovernmental organizations as well as government-independent elements of global civil society such as international non-governmental organizations and social movement organizations. One of the key aspects of political globalization is the declining importance of the nation-state and the rise of other actors on the political scene.
3. Cultural globalization. The phenomenon by which the experience of everyday life, as influenced by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, reflects a standardization of cultural expressions around the world. Propelled by the efficiency or appeal of wireless communications, electronic commerce, popular culture, and international travel, globalization has been seen as a trend toward homogeneity that will eventually make human experience everywhere essentially the same. This appears, however, to be an overstatement of the phenomenon. Although homogenizing influences do indeed exist, they are far from creating anything akin to a single world culture.
Perhaps what is going on in Romania is of the political species, with the actual (and not rhetorical) elimination of the democratic process to further the globalists efforts in undermining the nation-state, promoting a war in Ukraine, etc.
The cultural effort has been unremitting immigration in Europe and America to undermine national identity and reduce humans to a single, undistinguished entity.
Personally, I think that nos. 2 and 3 are pursued largely for the sake of no.1. We used to worry about a coming "one world government." I don't think you need that if you have a "one world economy." No. 3 needs to produce only enough cultural homogeneity to grease the skids for no. 1. You won't end up with a single world culture, but instead a universal consumerist culture laid over top of the various national and regional ones: "Your native culture and cuisine are lovely. By the way here's your smartphone."
I think that cultural traditionalism tends to act as a buffer to capital's "universal solvent" qualities. By weakening cultural norms you weaken the resistance.
People and ‘families’ without children are much less resistant to various economic demands. For example, they work longer hours and spend more on nonessentials. Once economic actors became rainbow color blind LGBT fitted right in.
You do realize that destabilization would hurt all three globalizations? Regardless of which definition you would choose - economic, political or cultural- they would all be hurt by destabilization?
Yet you wrote: “to further destabilize the world before Trump comes into office. Thus, further complicating his efforts to undermine their globalizing efforts.”
If they want a globalized world why would they destabilize it? This does not make sense. Destabilization hurts globalization.
The destabilization of the world is not a problem for globalists. Covid, George Floyd, the attack on the family at a minimum were used to destabilize societies. They all allowed global elites to concentrate power. They certainly did in the political and cultural domain, and I suggest in the economic domain. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste. Better yet, why not create a crisis to move your team forward. Lenin came to power out of war.
Why not destabilize things further to prevent Trump from getting the upper hand and further your own position?
Yes but the globalists are already in power. They don’t need to gain power, they already have it.
Covid was an accidental lab leak. George Floyd was a woke religious freakout. These things were not planned.
I would suggest to you that canceling the first round of Romania’s election was not a move to destabilize. It was an artless and counterproductive attempt to stabilize.
An unknown man who maybe wants to take Romania out of NATO and the EU destabilized the situation. Canceling the election is an attempt to bring back stability. I don’t think it will work.
They want to destabilize individual nations to make them easier to dominate. An stable U.S. is less trouble than a stable, united one. Same for France, Germany, etc, You seem determined to ignore reality and the last 30 years of hsitory.
“An stable U.S. is less trouble than a stable, united one”
For American politicians it is not less trouble. On the contrary - the Republicans lost their party to a hostile takeover by a reality TV star. The Democrats meanwhile won against said TV star once and lost twice. So the elites of both parties lost due to instability.
I would understand your point if you claimed that US elites destabilize every country except the US so they can rule them. But you are saying that they are also destabilizing their own country on purpose. That would be a crazy self-defeating thing to do.
Did you see that David French is hoping that one of the last things "Biden" does is step up US/NATO involvement in Ukraine before he leaves office? And not a hint therein of ending the conflict.
Except that seems to be what's going on. The most benevolent interpretation of what Washington is fomenting in Ukraine is that it's preparing a nice crap sandwich for Trump and Rubio. The worst is that they light the fuse for World War III hoping it goes off after Jan. 20.
Please ask Eldridge Colby if he thinks there is any chance of World War III. He is the Right’s favorite realist foreign policy expert and very pro-Trump. Yet on his twitter he never mentioned a possibility of World War III. Not even once.
I am not sure whether Methodism remains a Christian religion. From what I can tell, Methodism is a society of leftist social workers parading as a religion. The most famous Methodist today is Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman of an evil temperament.
Bush was born again in 1986. The left was terrified that Bush wanted to create a theocracy out of the US. I remember that because I was reading my father’s First Things magazines and they covered the theocracy panic.
I found an article just now on jstor titled “Dangerous Religion: George W. Bush's Theology of Empire”. I am unable to access most of it but here is a sentence from it: “President Bush uses religious language more than any president in U.S. history.”
15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’
The United Methodist Church has gone down that route. But it has caused a splintering, with many Christians leaving that umbrella. I know some of them personally.
But given Bush's hardcore globalist inclinations, I've doubts about th trueness of his faith. And there is no way Hillary is.
I don't know whether my town United Methodist Church has split from the main church but I can guess it hasn't. The current pastor is a woman, the former pastor was a woman, they keep Boy Scout gear in their parking lot and the left-wing Quaker Democrat in my neighborhood was friends with the old pastor.
No, the majority of Ukrainians support a peace settlement now and I agree. But with that peace settlement there needs to be more US / NATO involvement.
Thank you, Rod, for highlighting this as I've not read about recent developments. As you rightly noted, the infamous Victoria Nuland (she that spawned the beginnings of color revolution in Ukraine), is likely a prime mover in this travesty.
The State Dept official line is reminiscent of what all the Democrats have been saying about "democracy" here--to wit, the "Ignorant" US voters must not care about democracy since we voted in Donald Trump. This despite the fact that voters that considered "democracy" a key issue voted for Trump. (iirc, about 58% or so in that group...it was in a Gallup poll).
The Orwell-esque torture of language continues in how such terms as "democracy" are defined.
I will pray for peaceful but fair resolution of this issue for the poor Romanians, who've already endured so much.
Again - Victoria Nuland wanted Yanukovych to stay and to accept a pro-Western government under prime minister Yatsenyuk. It was the Ukrainan protesters who threw Yanukovych out.
Ursula’s Europe is going to keep getting more interesting. Pretty much across the board the citizenry just isn’t buying it anymore. This recent “We’re cancelling democracy to protect democracy” looks soooo threadbare. And similar moves are coming in other states, no doubt. Cf. Germany.
Exactly. The Russian attacks on Romania are "unprecedented"? Perhaps to Romania, but the Baltic Republics have endured Russian attacks for years without cancelling any elections.
And as far as Washington is concerned, we have travelled very far since 1864, when Abraham Lincoln wrote "We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."
I read somewhere that Lincoln unconstitutionally worked to carve off West Virginia from Confederate Virginia as thumb on the scale for the 1864 elections. Not sure how true that is. Anyone else? Derek, Bobby or other Southern history buffs?
I'm not sure how West Virginia was formed. The west had few slaves and was strongly against secession. Federal forces overwhelmed Confederate forces in what is now West Virginia in 1861 and 62. In separate commands, both Lee and Jackson suffered setbacks. The town of Romney, twenty miles west of me, changed hands something like fifty times. Incidentally, the county where I live, Hampshire, only joined West Virginia because strongly pro-Union Mineral County was attached to ours at the time. Hampshire County was very split, 1500 men serving the Confederacy and 1300 the Union.
Just looked it up: Lincoln had very little to do with the creation of West Virginia. It was entirely a grass roots movement. Furthermore, it began in 1861 as a rejection of Virginia's secession and as the formation of an alternate to the state government in Richmond. On June 20, 1861, this rump government at the Wheeling Convention elected a governor and two U.S. senators, who were promptly recognized by the Federal government as Virginia's (not West Virginia's) senators. The push to convert this rump government to a new state by secession from Virginia came two months later in August 1861, long before the 1864 elections were in sight. Until the creation of West Virginia in 1863 it was known as the Restored Government of Virginia.
PS: The Restored Government of Virginia held elections in 1862; state legislators were elected to the Wheeling government not only from West Virginia but also from Arlington, Alexandria, and the Delmarva Peninsula.
What was then the west of Virginia was as it is today, mountain people with nothing in common with the Tidewater or anything else south of D.C., including slavery. It was they who wanted to secede. How was carving WV from VA unconstitutional? Did Lincoln need to ask Davis's permission? He beat McClellan pretty decisively, anyway.
People have tried to say West Virginia was unconstitutionally formed as the Constitution says no state can be formed from the territory of another state without the original state’s permission. However, West Virginia presented itself as the loyal to the Union government of Virginia, not a separate state. And Confederacy apologists forget one thing, if they’re right, Virginia left the Union & was no longer under the US Constitution. It is interesting which counties went & which stayed with Virginia. Lots of trans Allegheny counties such as Highland, Bsth, Allegheny & the far SW “toe” of Virginia stayed. Never did find out why exactly. But yeah Montani Semper Liberari & all that.
Aldo apparently a pro Union county in NE Alabama tried to secede from the Confederacy. Every CSA state except South Carolina had men volunteering to fight for the Union. 60% of Virginia’s US Army officers remained loyal, so Lee was something of an outlier. The Civil War was not the simple North vs South morality play that we learned in history class. On either side.
Correct. There were state secession movements all up and down the Appalachian Mountains. That is in part why Appalachia got a reputation for poverty: beyond isolation and the coal economy, the post-Reconstruction state governments basically defunded the Appalachian counties to exact revenge.
Winston County, Alabama remained loyal to the Union. It was mountainous and didn't have a slave culture. Jones County, Mississippi remained loyal to the Union. It was heavily pinewoods with a hardscrabble agriculture. Southern Maryland was very pro-Confederate while Western Maryland was very pro-Union.
Martha, yet the Union did not recognize Virginia's secession so the Lincoln government considered Virginia part of the USA. Just a quibble. As for why certain Allegheny counties in Virginia stayed and some left the Union, I think Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Campaign of 1862 had much to do with it. Jackson's victories limited Union success to modern day West Virginia but not much more until 1864 as the war reached its end.
If one wanted to be legalistic, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were unconstitutional as was West Virginia's secession from Virginia. But government is not as clean and sterile as a hospital operating room.
Legalistically, the Union recognized the Wheeling government as the legitimate government of Virginia (as I posted above, in 1862 it had state representatives from the Tidewater and Arlington and Alexandria too), and so when that government approved West Virginia secession it did not run afoul of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Regarding the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, what was unconstitutional? Their passage by Reconstruction state legislatures? The resolution of Congress that would have refused to seat members of Congress from Confederate states if they refused to pass the Amendments?
I find arguments that these were unconstitutional acts to be Lost Cause mythology. "Have you no interest in what has become of your own husband, Mrs. Kennedy?...He's lying out on Decatur Road with a bullet in his head."
Mr. Mader, I wonder what will happen if the Germans cancel the AfD while Trump is in office. Will Trump have the guts to come down hard on Germany? Take all of our troops out of undemocratic Germany. Drop out of NATO altogether? Sever diplomatic ties?
I’m not sure what a Trump Administration would do. I suspect it would depend on how glaringly anti-democratic the cancellation was. Also, would those supporting the outlawed party hit the streets, organize strikes, etc.? That would be key. If the contest between cancelling elites and populist discontent began to boil, then I suspect Trump would start to apply concrete pressure. But Trump and his team would want to see the European masses themselves putting skin in the game. If they prove unwilling to stand up for themselves, then I think Trump’s reaction would be “To hell with ‘em.”
And all this ignores how at least part of Europe’s malaise is due to its subservience to Washington. How might Trump II impact that? Dunno.
In any case, Europe is almost certainly lurching toward a showdown, no? The UK too. The main role a Trump Administration is likely to play is as exemplar. Europeans will say, “The Americans can send their Deep State packing, why can’t we?”
But to work as exemplar, Trump II has to show concrete progress.
This is first-rate, but how do you see the UK "lurching for a showdown"? The Tories are gelded (Sunak supports the euthanasia law) and Labour's majority is stunning. I don't think they're polishing the pitchforks in Derbyshire, if that's what you mean.
A weakness of the modern British parliament system is that a government tends to be an elected dictatorship. Keir Starmer is effectively dictator of Britain for 4 1/2 more years unless his own party decides to dump him.
Because NATO's purpose ended in 1991 when the old Soviet Union collapsed. As a conservative American, I believe NATO should have been dissolved shortly after the end of the USSR.
Except within each country there are powerful forces that want to yank the wheel back from the people who have had enough. What the Italian judiciary is trying to do to
Giorgia isn't anywhere near actually cancelling and election, but it's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
I think we agree. I.e., there’s reason to celebrate the election, the momentum, the sheer rebuke of it all. But a rebuke fixes very little. It’s all uphill from here.
I think Trump’s team knows that, but will Trump himself cut stupid compromises along the way? And: Will the public be able to handle any blowback—say, seriously stalled budgets, etc.? Unless there’s some pain, there’s no gain.
One good thing about that manic fellow in Argentina, he told the population straight: “This is going to be painful.” We don’t have anywhere near the mess Argentina has, but Trump could use a little of that straight talk, I’d say.
Problem is, if there’s any pain, most of the public, even those who voted Trump, will see it as “Trump is doing a bad job.” There needs to be honest messaging from him and his team to counteract it. Sooner rather than later.
“Pretty much across the board the citizenry just isn’t buying it anymore”
The Polish people buy it because we benefited greatly from EU membership. We are incomparably wealthier than before. In fact Civic Platform gained power recently and during the campaign accused the right-wing Law and Justice party of wanting to pull Poland out of the EU. Law and Justice protested and said it was a lie.
“And similar moves are coming in other states, no doubt. Cf. Germany.”
Unfortunately - unlike the right-wing parties of France or Italy - the German AfD party is reportedly pretty crazy.
Thanks for this update. I was curious how Tusk’s aggressive takeover is faring. Sad to hear it’s still faring well. EU uses bullying and naked bribery to keep its members in line.
Hungary: "you will enact our policies or we will bankrupt you"
Georgia: "you voted against us so we'll fund a coup against you"
Romania: "the voting will continue until you vote the way we want."
France: "if you vote for the far-right, we'll have to examine your deficit."
Italy: "we have tools... wait, you're playing ball now, never mind."
The EU is example A of something I've been pushing for a while now: liberal democracy is an oxymoron. The tension between the terms is an unstable equilibrium that decays into liberal-authoritarianism (the tyranny of the minority) or true democracy (the tyranny of the majority.)
European countries have centuries of history as oligarchies, so I predict most of Western Europe will end up as liberal-authoritarians: a resurrected nobility/peasant system. The Eastern Europeans have a similar history, but were shaped profoundly by decades of totalitarian rule under communism, so they may go hard the other way. We'll see.
If you’ve written anything laying out your argument re: an “unstable equilibrium” fated to decay, I’d be interested to read it. I can see various mechanisms myself, agree with some of Deneen’s arguments in his main thesis years ago. One question for me is: Do republics with constitutions based on liberal principles inevitably create cultures that undo the founding order?
One main mechanism I see at work isn’t mysterious in the least. To win elections, candidates and parties buy votes by promising voters goods that the state should not deliver. Eventually, to implement their promises, a bureacracy arises. Which of course naturally grows, becoming the managerial elite we now have.
Who formulated the law: “Any organization that is not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing.”
I will PM you my original piece entitled "Liberal Democracy Is An Oxymoron". Green light me for PM. It is in the same vein as Deneen. No online publisher has bit on it, which probably means I'm just not a very good writer (not surprising, since my background is in engineering and CS). My own substack is about theology not politics.
I really didn't think through my "unstable equilibrium" comment before writing the phrase. It just felt accurate, and re-reading it now, I'm pretty sure it is. Deneen nails one possible avenue of decay (liberal authoritarianism), but there clearly is a second one possible. I can't think of any countries that are sliding in the direction of "excess democracy" though.
Heard some more about this issue tonight listening to a podcast. Georgescu's opponent is apparently backed by Soros...fwiw. Another aspect to this is that the U.S. has troops stationed in Romania (iirc, about 1000 soldiers), which adds piquancy to the State Dept interference.
Worth the listen to the Mike Benz appearance on Joe Rogan to better grasp the interrelationship of our IC, State Dept and progressive policies.
When complete, NATO's new airbase in Romania will be larger than Ramstein. I pity the poor Romanians (and the Poles, Balts,...). When war breaks out, their nation will be laid to waste.
Putin has said that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
My opinion is the exact opposite- it was the greatest thing to happen in the 20th century.
Regarding NATO expansion it will perhaps interest you that as soon as the Russian army left our country we immediately started pressuring the US to let us into NATO.
“I know that the US liberal-globalist elite constantly intervenes in other nations”
So you must know that the globalist elite (the UN) supports the Palestinians and the US elite supports Israel.
What do you thinks of the Chinese-Russian globalist elite and their constant interventions in other nations? Like for instance poisoning Yushchenko and destroying his face or stealing Abkhazia and Ossetia from Georgia or the planned murder of Armin Papperger, the CEO of Rheinmetall or the murders committed in the UK and Germany?
Regarding your conversation with “Metaverse” man, you said, “But there is something particular about places and spaces that have been hallowed.”
When I went to see you down in Birmingham, that was the first time I had ever been in an Orthodox church (we came for the prayer that morning). I could certainly feel the reverence of the people who came that morning, and since my wife kept taking pictures and we were the last to leave, I could still sense the hallowedness of the place even without the people there. My wife particularly identifies with such spaces because she was touched as a child going into a Catholic church. There is certainly something special about the Orthodox form of worship.
Even still, I can identify with Metaverse man as well. You may see his worship as more emotionally based, and indeed he may have a lot of emotion, but don’t discount how deep his experience with God may run. There are pros and cons to everything. When you are not physically present with other people you lose part of the deeper human connection that you can enjoy with people. On the other hand, typically, you have to restrain your worship when you’re in a church building with other people. Some places will frown on people even raising their hands to worship God, let alone dancing with all their hearts. I don’t begrudge the man wanting to express his heart to God in total freedom. If he should be able to learn something from you, then you should also be able to learn something from him.
In the 1990’s, I took my family as often as possible, driving 500 miles from Tucson to Pasadena, to go to a place called Mott Auditorium. Man, that place was special. We would go for the conferences they held there, and I would start standing in line very early in the morning to get a seat as close to the front as I could, and then we would be there all day until late at night. Even standing in line was deeply enjoyable because you were there with others who were as hungry for God as you were. But the reason I wanted to get near the front was because you could feel the presence of God more there. It was like coming near a nuclear reactor. You wanted to get as close as you could. I was forever annihilated by God in that place.
Mott Auditorium wasn’t hallowed because people held church there. It wasn’t hallowed because of the icons or other signs of Christian worship (they had none of those). It was hallowed simply because God was showing up there. Children saw the place filled with angels. People were healed. Lives were changed. And many, many people fell in love with God in ways they never imagined were possible.
Even more, I firmly believe that Mott Auditorium saved our nation. It was from the people there, who held a day a fasting and prayer on the mall in D.C. just before the 2000 election (that drew about 400,000 people), that I think tilted the election to Bush. It was from those same people that a similar day of fasting and prayer was held this year in D.C., that I also think changed the direction our nation has been heading. I took my family to the first one. My daughter took her daughter to the second one, while we listened online.
More than any other place, Mott Auditorium in Pasadena changed our lives. But if we went there today… it wouldn’t nearly be the same as it used to be, in part because the church there has moved on to another facility, in part because they no longer have meetings there like they used to, but I suspect there are many fewer angels there today than there used to be as well.
Don’t look down on temporary revivals. Sure, the revival itself fades out. But the people changed by the revival go on to do amazing things for God. The Azusa street revival of the early 1900’s has led to several hundred million Pentecostals coming to God worldwide. The Toronto Blessing revival (that Mott Auditorium was part of) has led to many millions of people being saved and tens of thousands of churches being planted. Our world has been changed by it, and continues to be changed by it. One man transformed by the Toronto Blessing has led over a million Muslims to Jesus in Pakistan alone. Another man transformed at the Pasadena church has likewise saved millions around the world. Burned out missionaries from Africa have seen God do incredible things, even in the midst of civil war and the killing of their pastors (they have trained thousands of pastors there). They hold church in grass shacks, under trees, and even in garbage dumps. And God shows up.
I know you will soon be going to Mount Athos. You should also go visit Heidi Baker in Mozambique – and go with her to the garbage dumps there. Some spaces are indeed hallowed. Other spaces are filled with suffering. What matters is, are people encountering God and being transformed in those spaces. Are lives being changed.
We met a beautiful Palestinian Christian lady at the church in Birmingham, who has gone there for many years. She was beautiful because she has such a heart for God. I’m sure the space there in Birmingham has helped her stay close to God like that. So God bless that Orthodox church. Personally, I’d rather go to a garbage dump where God shows up and transforms the lives of people who have no hope. And then let them dance on the garbage worshipping the Lord.
Don’t ever discount what can happen when people encounter Jesus. If Metaverse man can worship God in spirit and truth virtually. Let him. And try to learn from him. As we, who are not Orthodox, try to learn from you.
"But the reason I wanted to get near the front was because you could feel the presence of God more there. It was like coming near a nuclear reactor. You wanted to get as close as you could. I was forever annihilated by God in that place."
As a former Charismatic I think this is a faulty interpretation. I remember those feelings well, but they had far more to do with emotion and psychology than with the presence of God. Frankly, you get the same at a rock concert. And make it a Christian rock concert and you can throw God in too. People always gravitate to the front in such circumstances.
I don't mean to toss a wet blanket on your enthusiasm, but having spent close to 20 years of my life in that world I'd argue that your enthusiasm is misplaced. No offense intended, but you're involved in something that's a mile wide but only an inch deep. It's just hard to see it from the inside.
Allow me to push back as well. I know how people can have energy at a concert and the closer you get to the front the more energy the people around you have. Sure, there can be that in a church as well. But how about when nobody's there? Can you sense the difference in that case? While a non-believer would say it's all psychological, a believer senses that there are spaces that are more hallowed than others. I agree that the Orthodox way of building a sacred space contributes to this sense, but it's because of how the people are affected by the space. The charismatic "hallowed" space is different but same in the sense that it is the people that make the difference - and the closer you get to the front - the more the people are likely to believe.
If it is only emotion, then I'd agree with your sentiment that it is only an inch deep. My experience is, as far as I am able to tell, is quite different from that. I can feel it even when nobody is there. And that "feeling" is significantly different than an emotional feeling.
As an aside, I don't like hype. It seems when the Spirit is not moving then people want to make something happen. It can seem similar, but in the end, it's very shallow.
Well, the reason I'd disagree is that the "charismatic" buildings are almost inevitably multi-use venues. You can have a concert there as easily as a service, or a political lecture/rally, etc., etc. The feeling of God's presence is entirely based on what's going on, not on the edifice as such. At the Pentecostal Bible college I attended the main auditorium/hall was used for both chapel services and larger classes. The "feel" of the hall was definitely different between the two. They also used it for fund-raising rallies -- and these had yet a different feeling.
Yes, you're right about the multi use aspect of the spaces. I was talking specifically about a multi-day conference where that's the only thing going on for those days.
I'm just saying that any space can become a special place when people encounter God there. Consider the weight that someone who has known God in a special way can bring into a space - no matter where that space is.
I was hoping to see a comment from you where I could put my current thought so you could see it. For context I've begun reading The Catholic Imagination by Andrew Greeley, based on David Tracy's work and half the book about Protestants. From that book: All spaces are sacred so some spaces are more sacred than others.
I buy what Rod is selling because in my case (and I suspect your case) I think he is preaching to the choir. All places are sacred, down to the Walmart parking lot. Suffering and being aware of a need for Jesus hallows the ground everywhere.
Most of my hallowed ground is much like in nursing homes and hospitals.
Where I am pushed to be Catholic is not for myself the beautiful churches but for truth. The screen issue is a secondary but firm argument against alternatives for me. Just the other day I was in Mass and someone started scrolling through the daily readings on their phone, ugh, people aren't supposed to do that so I closed my eyes to refocus. Thankfully an exception.
As for my objection of where we disagree and where I would ask you to consider. Metaverse man is worse because he is wearing a ridiculous headset and is mediated by technology. Helps, thinking, writing, communicating can have an electronic mail aspect, but our talking with God himself while extra immersed has something really off about it. An example (Edit, an example of what works well enough) when I read Rod's blog I sometimes pray as I read here for the people who comment, (because) between me and God there is no electronics.
Protestants emphasize we don't need a mediator other than going directly to Jesus. Electronics getting too involved is a detraction from it, and I implore you to consider that new people can't easily feel God's presence when the electronics are creating out of body experiences.
I don't personally need a Cathedral but I need a way of thinking that values a Cathedral.
I can't yet say about the Eucharistic Adoration aspect, but I think that may be in part attention based too. I believe in the Eucharist but having an awareness of all spaces being sacred I am not expecting too much more. Maybe I will be surprised later?
Lastly, I hadn't thought of the garbage dumps in years and Rod should go there too as a writer and collector of spiritual experiences. Not because beautiful churches are bad but because it is yet another interesting and inspiring thing.
Adoration has never failed me. Even during periods of dryness, something.....an insight, a sin I have been burying, a person that needs prayer, peace, something always comes of that time. 25 years into my re-version and Jesus, present in Adoration, has been my "go-to", even when I can't seem to quiet my mind.
If Metaverse Man is standing alone in Mott Auditorium with his VR headset, he doesn't have your experience. You made 1000-mile round trip pilgrimages to be incarnately present among thousands in worship; he can be bothered to flip the power switch.
Metaverse Man annoys because he is a condensed symbol of a desire for a bespoke 'Jesus and me' Christianity where he treats it as an personal optimization exercise. The proof of love for Christ, or anything really, is to be willing to under go some pains for the beloved. One doesn't sense that in his approach.
I was willing to give the guy some slack. After all, I don't know him. Reading just now about some actual church VR experiences, it does seem more like what you're suggesting. Even still, consider someone who puts a service on their big screen TV , turns up the worship, and praises God with all their heart. I like to sing, but my wife doesn't want me sing too loudly in church (it can be distracting). That's one aspect I personally would like.
My question is why someone would choose to regularly worship alone in his living room instead of in community e.g. Acts of the Apostles doesn't have everyone doing his own thing in his separate hovel.
Scripture tells us to gather together, even though doing so in their day could get you in real trouble. No argument there. The VR version does allow you to actually interact with people, and you can break up into small groups and pray for each other, so it's not entirely "separate".
But really, this is mostly for young men who are used to playing games in VR worlds. Hopefully, they won't only do VR church. Certainly, go ahead and encourage them to come to an actual church. But I'd hesitate to say what they are doing is wrong.
'They hold church in grass shacks, under trees, and even in garbage dumps. And God shows up.'
Sure, I agree with that. "Where two or three are gathered, I am with them". My parents have had Mass celebrated in their backyard a couple times.
That said, Catholics and Orthodox are going to insist that some spaces, particularly churches, are more sacred (meaning 'dedicated to particular use/removed from profane use' e.g. concerts, conferences, etc.) than other places. Old timey Catholic practice was to exorcise then bless things prior to sacred use. Also, Catholics/Orthodox believe that the Eucharistic species are the presence of Christ himself. So, that being secured in the church tabernacle alone makes the church different from anywhere else.
Certainly there are differences. But often charismatic churches will have pre-service prayer where they ask God to come, to prepare people's hearts, and to remove any hinderances that shouldn't be there. It's roughly similar.
That's a good practice. The beginning of every Catholic Mass, even post-Vatican II, has the same thing in the 'Confiteor' prayer (i.e. "I confess to Almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters...").
"Even more, I firmly believe that Mott Auditorium saved our nation."
If you're referring to the election of Dubya in 2000 I think you're utterly mistaken (like me; I voted for him, too). Al Gore should have had to respond to 9/11. I don't know how he would have done so, but Dubya screwed everything up with reprise of Woodrow Wilson's "make the world safe for democracy" in the form of "propagate democracy everywhere, by force if necessary," and to do so he jettisoned whatever genuine conservative (socially conservative) instincts or commitments he may have had. In effect, with his puppet-master Cheyney he put the worst sort of fake conservatives - just look at where the Cheyneys have gone - in charge of the GOP. And the reaction to all this produce "the historical moment" for Trump the New Republican.
W certainly had his shortcomings, but at the time, compared to where Gore would have steered us, I'll take W. Of course we can't play out history and then choose which one we want after we see where we'll end up. We have to trust God.
But just consider who might have been put on the Supreme court if Gore had won, and where we'd be now in that case. We could have ended up like Romania with a court that shuts down the elections to prevent a Trump from winning!
All that is true. Again, elections are a chess game, not a be all, end all. Sometimes it is "who will do the least damage." Bush did horrid damage? But would Gore have been worse? Quite possibly.
We now look back at the Iraq war and see it as a big mistake, but at the time, it seemed the right thing to do. Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's at the time, we knew he wanted to have them, and we knew he was willing to invade other countries. The possibility of having a WMD set off in a major city after what happened on 911 was intolerable.
And yet, America has no real desire to control another people, nor did we know how to manage a country we had overthrown. We blindly hoped that the Iraqi's themselves would become like us wanting freedom and doing what it takes to have it. That was a huge mistake.
But that experience now tempers our ambitions to shape the world. It's one thing to make a big mistake. It's another thing not to learn from it.
And Gore? What would Gore have done with the "axis of evil"? Remember bin Laden thinking America was a paper tiger? Wouldn't Hilary have continued Obama's policies with Iran?
My thinking is that only God knows how this chess game will play out. And only He can make the moves that are needed. But we still have to do the best we can do with what we know at the time. Bush did what seemed right at the time, and I would have likely made the same mistakes.
Re: Compared to where Gore would have steered us, I'll take W.
You actually think Gore would have been worse than Bush on handling the 9-11 stuff? Gore was probably more left than you'd like on environmental issues, but otherwise he was pretty much the same sort of moderate liberal that Clinton was, though without the bimbo eruptions.
Tis true that Gore was more centrist like Clinton, and likely would not have invaded Iraq. But that would have left Saddam festering away, and I suppose Iraq would have eventually collapsed anyway, given Iran's support for the majority Shite there and Saddam not living forever. Syria just fell after all.
So was our invasion of Iraq a mistake in the long run? I don't know.
But I do know that Gore would have steered us to the Left on social issues, on judges, and the environment.
What do you think should be done even now with Iran and North Korea? The world is every bit of a mess as it was back then. We might have messed up with stabilizing Iraq after the invasion, but to me, we should have figured out how to do it. I've heard now that nukes are being put up for sale. If that's true, what do you suppose we should do about it?
IMO the "screw up" was basing the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq on the occupations of Germany and Japan. The defeated in WW2 were shamed into submission (Germany with Nazi atrocities, Japan just by losing). The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are shameless. The only way we could have successfully occupied the two countries was to have immediately bought off the populace: oil profits in Iraq, opium purchases in Afghanistan. Instead we turned over the oil profits to the Iraqi government (thus failing to spread the wealth and investing the populace in peace and stability) and sprayed herbicides on the poppies in Afghanistan. That's why we failed.
Or to build on Colin Powell's "You break it you own it", not if it is already broken by its very nature.
Not just that, though that is true. Every foreign situation is framed in WW2 terms, when that is a mistake. Each is unique and can only be examined on its own terms. Use the lessons off history, but to think they are exact parallels, especially our preferred parallel which makes a good club with which to beat the heads off doubters, is a mistake.
I personally know a couple of Romanians who voted for Georgescu in the first round. They are neither TikTok users nor Russian dupes. They simply do not want their country used as a battleground for a NATO-Russian war.
Ah, yes, the judges. What are the Romanian processes for vetting and restraining them? Up here in Canada we know well the relevance of Juvenal’s cynical old question to the selection and operation of these sheepdogs (my apologies to the canine species!) of the progressive establishment: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Short of concrete evidence of actual rigging of the ballot boxes in Georgescu’s favour it’s hard to see how this intervention could be categorized as anything other than a judicial coup.
Reading this, I couldn’t help but remember the first part of Frank Galvin’s summation in “The Verdict”:
“You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true." And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time, we become dead... a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims... and we become victims. We become... we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs. We doubt our institutions. And we doubt the law.”
Alas, the second part of his summation doesn’t seem applicable in this case.
Re: I’m just repeating to you what my friends and contacts there are telling me about all this
Are any of those people actually in a position to know? If not you're just repeasting rumors, the equivalent of the 9-11 trutherism. And if anyone thinks Russia would not gleefully meddle in its neighbors affairs I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.
"if anyone thinks Russia would not gleefully meddle in its neighbors affairs I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them"
That's fine, Jon, as long as you grant that we do exactly the same, which seems to be what is going on here. And we're supposed to be "the good guys." Never mind your bridge. I have some property in Pomona available....
Jon wouldn't believe it anyway unless he went to Romania and saw it for himself. Ron could somehow get quotes from a couple of dozen of the Romanians who came to his book signing about what was happening to their country and it wouldn't be enough for our Doubting Jon.
Er, um, I do believe the election cancellation news. I just reject the knee-jerk assumption that the US is behind it. When I was younger I rejected the Leftist notion that the US was behind everything bad in the world, and I reject the same unwarranted assumption on the Right. Foreign nations do not need us (or Russia either for that matter) to behave badly on their own prerogative.
Believe it or not, I agree that America was not behind the cancellation of the Romanian election. This is a Romanian operation. And not very wise. I can see a political firestorm in Romania shortly.
You do hopefully see a difference. Russian meddling results in Yushchenko being poisoned and having his face permanently destroyed. It also results in a rule by a policeman’s baton. American meddling results in nothing like that.
To be clear, I regard the canceling of elections to be a banana republic move. I know nothing about the Romanian constitution but I assume their Supreme Country has the delegated power to do this(?). Not sure why they would have such a power. However it seems more likely the current gang on power in Bucharest would be behind this, perhaps (speculation) because they fear being investigated for shady doings by a successor who is not on board with business as usual.
“Acting on the intelligence, Iohannis declassified secret files that alleged Georgescu had unlawfully benefited from extensive electoral promotion during periods when campaigning was prohibited. The documents alleged his campaign had received foreign financial support, despite the fact he declared he’d spent nothing on it.”
The Rogan Episode with Mike Benz does a pretty good job explaining the blob and their rainbow revolutions/interference is overseas elections for “democracy.” It certainly fits with this.
No, those examples aren't democracy. Nor is cancelling an election because someone from another country was propagandizing. Are you related to Jay Nordlinger?
We all need to pray for the people of Eastern Europe. Such things have a tendency of developing into civil war. That’s the last thing the region (and the world) needs right now. The forces of chaos are in full swing.
It must be gratifying for Rod Dreher to have had such an overwhelming amount of support for his book and his ideas. From Romania to Italy to France and to America, more and more people know that the establishment is the enemy of their organic cultures. In Romania, the establishment denied the election of an anti-establishment conservative, Calin Georgescu, and turned their backs on Romanian democracy. One hopes a general strike is called and the Romanian economy ground to a halt. A few words from President-elect Donald Trump might be useful.
Let me compare Romanians fight against its decadent political and cultural establishment with what just recently happened in Ireland. Ireland's two winning parties in Ireland's recent elections are both culturally left-wing but pro-business, fossilized remnants of the Irish Civil Wars of a century ago. And this after Ireland had spasms of resistance to its political and cultural establishment after an African refugee stabbed three Irish girls to death a few months ago. Where is there a culturally conservative party in Ireland? Where is there a political party to defend the Irish people? Where is there any resistance to an evil establishment? It is hard for me to say because I have Irish blood but perhaps the Irish are a nation of cowards and conformists.
There isn’t a conservative party in Ireland. Why is a complicated question. Remember the Republic of Ireland is born out revolutionary violence that began a little over a century ago on Easter 1916. The left played a significant role in this . James Connelly was a socialist and a martyr of the struggle. That’s part of the national legacy. The War of Independence and the Civil War take place and Eamon DeValera winds up on top . Ireland consolidates as a kind of clerico Catholic state that was quite conservative yet not particularly ideological.Gradually this disintegrates and the parties that came out of the 20s drifted into modern neoliberalism. Remember that other than Catholicism, they had no conservative ballast. There was an eccentric character named Stan Gebler Davies who took a shot some years ago at launching a Conservative Party but that went nowhere. With Catholicism gone, most Irish wanted to be “ modern “. Don’t imagine that there is some mass constituency for anything that could be called conservativism. There isn’t.Ok I said this was complicated and it should be noticed that I haven’t mentioned the elephant in the room,Northern Ireland. Ireland is in a sense a product of an anti colonial struggle . This lead to it not automatically identifying with “ The West “ and being not unsympathetic to world wide anti colonial struggles. Ireland never joined NATO and was openly neutral. Many Irish never stopped viewing the UK as the enemy.When I was in Ireland during the Vietnam War there was quite a bit of anti Americanism. Then Northern Ireland “ cooked off”. Northern Catholics were definitely not apt to identify with conservativism which was the old Anglo Irish squirearchy and increasingly the Paisely lumpen and Orange orders. Instead they took inspiration from the American Civil Rights movement. Gradually the old Nationalists were replaced by the explicitly (moderate) leftist Social Democrat and Labour Party. With violence that old zombie the IRA came roaring back . This IRA was quite left wing. Both the Provos and the Officials claimed Marxism at certain points. Remember the IRA resurgence was initially defensive. That’s what gained them their cache. It’s well worth your time to watch the movie Bloody Sunday directed by Paul Greengrass because it dramatically illustrates this with the IRA coming out of the shadows.The new IRA spawned a series of left leaning political movements in both the North and South. The Workers Party, The Irish Republican Socialist Party and most importantly in the long run a revived Sinn Fein which has become the third largest party in the South and probably the biggest party in the North.To make a long complicated story as short as possible, the cultural and historical predicates for what an American might recognize as conservativism don’t exist in Ireland. And after centuries of poverty, oppression and forced immigration, people are rather attracted to being rich , complacent and well bourgeois and it’s rather understandable.At the same time a kind of radical chic ideology spawned by the troubles and fortified by the national revolutionary myth makes conservatism quite unattractive.
Thanks for your very interesting comments, John. As an aside, I am a great fan of The Clancy Brothers music group from the 60s and have a CD of their December 1966 tour. It is fascinating that the Clancy Brothers displayed so much contempt for the British yet Paddy and Thomas Clancy served in the British Navy in World War Two. Ireland certainly has a history unique to itself. But I would think that they're ready for a political party that defended Ireland's culture.
Baseline point, what is Ireland’s culture? The Irish don’t even speak their own language. Look , Poles speak Polish, Germans - German, etc. The Irish speak English. The Irish nationalists grasped this was a problem and made some effort to promote Irish but it was pretty much a lost cause. Oh sure they teach it in school and it actually is a living language in a few western villages but otherwise, forget it. Brendan Behan satirized the Gaelic revival quite humorously in The Hostage where an IRA commander whose father is a Church of Ireland Bishop, refuses to speak English in Dublin and has to have a translator even though, of course English is his native language.So you have a country that speaks a foreign language as it’s vernacular. Ireland has a great literary history. But most of its writers were of English descent. Yeats was a great writer who celebrated the Irish cause and traditional culture and was totally disconnected from and actually hostile to the Catholic culture of most Irish.What distinguished the Irish the most from the English was , they were Catholic. Without that there is no big difference. They are an English inculturated people who live over the Irish Sea from England and have a culture that is largely English derived.
It is not pleasant to admit, but you are largely correct. Irish culture has a strong English culture attached to it. In Massachusetts, the old Irish culture has conformed to the old Yankee Puritan culture. Massachusetts Irish politicians differ very little from the old Yankee liberals. Jack Kennedy was little different than Henry Cabot Lodge and Edward Markey is little different from William Weld and Charlie Baker.
Thinking of "West Briton," I suddenly recall it being spat out as a curse by Miss Ivors at Gabriel Conroy in John Huston's film version of Joyce's "The Dead" (1987); and then my mind and memory were swept away to the film and that haunting ballad "The Lass of Aughrim." Funny how the memory works; the song scene is here:
I recall that an Irish member of the UK parliament cried out "Give Ireland back to the Irish!" and then a bencher yelled "And give Liverpool back to the English!"
I'd emphasise that Irish social conservatism had really no content other than Catholicism, which has now sharply declined.
The USA is a bit like Ireland in that social conservatism is heavily Christian. In the UK, social conservatism is pretty much disconnected from religion (rather like in Japan), and is tangled up with things like support for the monarchy, celebration of British history, patriotism, courtesy, and just a disconnected jumble of cultural things (more pubs than churches). There's a tendency for assertive Christianity to be seen as incompatible with social conservatism, as Catholicism is seen as unpatriotic, and Evangelicalism as weird, modern, American, etc.
Personally, I have sympathy with the social conservative temperament in both the UK and Japan. I mean that I like the monarchy, respect tradition, understand people not wanting mass immigration, and just get the thing about English people in some small town wanting a quiet life, and pubs with warm beer, cricket, and fish and chips. On the other hand, it's not really all that Christian, and at points is incompatible with Christianity. I wouldn't push this too far, but in both countries there's a case to be made that a Christian should push for demographic replacement by Christian foreigners.
Re: I mean that I like the monarchy, respect tradition, understand people not wanting mass immigration, and just get the thing about English people in some small town wanting a quiet life, and pubs with warm beer, cricket, and fish and chips.
I have a similar attitude (though would not want a monarchy in the US as that is quite alien to our tradition no matter how much voyeur stuff we do on the Merry House of Windsor.
Re: On the other hand, it's not really all that Christian, and at points is incompatible with Christianity.
I don't think it's possible to marry Christianity to any particular social or cultural ideology-- Christianity about something lot bigger than worldly things and the marriage only works if you water down the Christianity-- a lot.
Never underestimate the value of the 2nd Amendment. Since most of our "elites" over here have never actually been punched in the face, they fear unwashed hordes of Dirt People with their boomsticks getting all riled up if they go too far. It's why they get so freaked out about January 6, which was, in the main, a bunch of Boomers holding a parade through the Capital without a permit.
It's also why I'm not personally too upset with the street assassination of Brian Thompson, frankly. It is good for our elites to be reminded that they can get got the same as a West Baltimore drug dealer. It helps to focus their minds.
Back in the day Michael Kinsley liberals used to say that that the U.S. was the only country in the world (he meant that West, but this was pre Ta-Nehisi) without single-payer healthcare, and all of them tightly regulate gun ownership as well, blah blah blah, and all the boys and girls sagely nodded their heads. And now they're saying the same thing about the First Amendment. You know they want here what's going down in Britain. You know it.
“they fear unwashed hordes of Dirt People with their boomsticks getting all riled up if they go too far.”
Really? But they went too far multiple times. On abortion and the trans issue and the race issue they went further than any European country. So they obviously don’t fear them.
“Never underestimate the value of the 2nd Amendment”
Against the Army the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t mean much.
“It's why they get so freaked out about January 6”
No, they freaked out about January 6 because they wanted to tie Trump to it forever and so insure that he has no future in politics.
“It helps to focus their minds.”
And yet they have no fear of your threats. On abortion and the race issue and the trans issue they went as far as they wanted and all those cowards with guns didn’t do anything.
"Against the Army the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t mean much."
With wokery that might be true today, but up until at least 2000 it was widely known (polling consistently backed this up) that the U.S. military's personnel were pro-2nd Amendment (after all, they like their guns too, and they know they will retire) and would likely mutiny had they been employed in a concerted effort to disarm the populace.
There are an estimated 75 million gun owners in the US with over 300 million guns. I think that is a great deal of something, unless the US is prepared to nuke cities indiscriminately. And maybe even then. Remember it was Yamamoto who said invading the US was impossible due to gun ownership. As to defeating the US Army, talk to the Afghans.
Or the Vietnamese. Or the Iraqis. The US Army is a very formidable instrument. But only when led by people who understand its strengths and limitations.
Wars always lead to mass starvation and disease, and in any case would affect both sides. If you think that makes armed conflict in the US impossible, you are simply wrong.
Do you think mass murder on such a scale, and out of lust for power, can ever be justified? God's mercy may be infinite but if anyone is in Hell, those who choose such a path surely are in its deeper pits.
If I read you correctly, you are saying that because a civil war in the US would have horrible consequences we must never let it happen and so we should accept anything our government throws at us - immiseration, jail time, execution - rather than revolt. Sorry, no. What you are doing is allowing the most evil to take over because you are too "good" to risk the consequences of fighting back. I am not in favor of war, civil or otherwise. But your attitude leads to hell on earth. I'll take my chances with the real thing when the day arrives.
You make the mistake of believing "The Army" would just form up and start shooting "dirt people."
Most of the ranks of The Army are made up of "dirt people." In fact, the deeper you get into the ranks of the combat arms, that's all you see. Also, the idea that they would just blindly obey such an order without serious disruption is fantasy. Add to that, the ranks of "dirt people" are made up of all kinds of formidable people, including veterans (including operators), cops etc. And in such a conflict, asymetrical warfare/insurgency, you don't charge into the teeth of the beast, you do not attack at the part with the armor and guns. You attack the fuel vehicles, ammo carriers, supply caravans. You make sure the population at large, who look the same and speak the same language, in that environment, the only land you control for sure is that which you stand on. And even that is not 100 percent.
Yeah, the "elite", the useless idiots, were poop scared. Because they saw they are not invincible or invulnerable. They knew it and the public at large knew it.
"People should not live in fear of their governments. Governments should live in fear of the people."
Why do you think AOC went on about hiding under her desk...when the riot never even came near her?
They are cowards who have never, most of them, been punched in the face.
Incorrect. They are not mindless robots only in service of their paychecks. You have never been a soldier. You do not know them. And once again, you know nothing of what you speak.
I'm going on the basis of history. And military personnel often have families dependent on those paychecks and benefits. They won't toss that away for the sake of some lowlifet troublemakers looting and vandalizing.
Yet, they have. They have also served without pay. You do not know your history. When we take that oatj, it is more than just words. US soldiers are not soulless mercenaries. What would you die for, Jon? A paycheck? Not me, not those who do uniformed service. You want a paycheck, there are many more jobs that will not ask you to put your life on the line.
Not surprising. I expect we’ll see exactly the same sort of treatment by the BBC’s Canadian counterpart as progressive establishment Rottweiler, the CBC, along with all our other major media except the National Post.
Ok, so maybe you will explain how a completely unknown individual has immediately 25,000 TikTok accounts supporting him?
For the record - I am against canceling the election. I think it will only make Georgescu more popular. But aren’t you the least bit curious where did those TikTok accounts come from?
“Acting on the intelligence, Iohannis declassified secret files that alleged Georgescu had unlawfully benefited from extensive electoral promotion during periods when campaigning was prohibited. The documents alleged his campaign had received foreign financial support, despite the fact he declared he’d spent nothing on it.”
As I said I am against canceling the election. But maybe it is interesting if he violated the law by campaigning during so called “election silence”. And I think it is even more interesting if he had substantial foreign financial support. Still he won the first round and unless he visibly broke the law (I think the election silence thing is too small) there should have been a second round.
1) They are allegations, not proved facts. We have seen how intelligence reports are not facts cast in stone, only various levels of probabilities; sometimes they are false plants.
2) It is possible that 'received' means much more than transfer of funds into the Georgescu campaign bank accounts, it could well include expenditures not under his control. If that is grounds for canceling election results then why should we ever have elections at all?
3) Again, if you can prove 25,000 TikTok accounts can influence any election I might get curious, but until then I am extremely skeptical of any 'improper election influences' having any real effects.
Nothing to worry about! Instability and great power meddling in central Europe and the Balkans has never caused any problems before. Yeesh! Paging Gavrilo Princip . . .
EU/NATO=The Illusion of Freedom (Reality:Vassalhood to Washington DC)
Look what these good Western "democracy lovers" are unleashing on the little Orthodox Christian Nation of Georgia right now after the elections didn't go the way DC/EU/NATO wanted it.
https://www.rt.com/russia/608866-georgian-riot-police-clash/
The Pro-EU (French Born) President of Georgia (as opposed to the PM, Georgia has a Parliament and this supposedly anti Western government was elected by the Georgian people by a large majority) has called upon "Georgian Schoolchildren" , YES SCHOOLCHILDREN to join the protests in Tblisi which have already taken a violent turn. Thank God the Orthodox Patriarch of Georgia condemned the Western Puppet Georgian President for trying to put children in harms way.
https://orthochristian.com/165237.html
What does the Western Cabal want in Georgia? They want to overthrow the current government in a Maidan (Ukrainian) style coup and plunge the nation into a suicidal war with Russia (opening a second southern front against Russia).
This is the same West (DC led let's not forget) that has just unleashed the Wahhabi Takfiri hordes into Syria (conspiring with Erdogan and Netanyahu) in a renewed attempt to overthrow the government of Bashar Al Assad. Plunging Syria and the entire region into further chaos and endangering the lives of millions especially non-Sunni Syrian minorities. That's Western Liberal Values on display folks. The values of the Devil no less.
It's almost pure evil: (1) high-handed belief that the global masses need direction by the enlightened elite; (2) the most brutal form of capitalism; and (3) LGBT and all the rest of the Sexual Revolution vomit.
I'll probably end up getting deleted if I tie it in with what's happening in Syria, but of course it's far more extreme and bloody there than in Romania.
I haven't been following the Syria thing but it's certainly true of Ukraine.
What is certainly true? That the Ukrainian people have higher weekly Mass attendance than the Russians? Yes that is true.
What's true is the tie-in to Ukraine of Rombald's three points above.
Rombald, do you find this to be a fair summary of the situation in Syria?
https://nypost.com/2024/12/07/opinion/faced-with-a-new-rebel-offensive-can-bashir-al-assad-survive-in-syria/
Some of it’s not too bad, although painting the USA in too good a light. However, it’s highly unlikely that Assad did use chemical weapons. The Syrian regime was moving towards democracy.
It also completely omits Israeli support, I might get deleted for this, but Israeli officials said they would prefer Syria controlled by ISIS than by Iran. Notice that the Wahhabi-extremist groups never attack Israel; their enemies are Shia, Christians, and moderate/secular regimes. Over the last few days, Israel has been bombing Syria in coordination with the Wahhabis.
There's effectively a propaganda lockdown where pointing out what the Jews are doing in regards to Syria and Armenia gets you put in the same camp as the loons cheering the October 7 massacre and calling for the destruction of Israel. Just zero nuance, you're-with-us-or-against-us crap. You either give Israel carte blanche or you're with the Muslims.
I don't know that anything will change regarding this. Christians in this part of the world are foreign exotics (Armenia) or vulnerable minorities (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon), which makes it easy for pro-Israel media to just sweep them under the rug. For their part Muslims make for singularly unsympathetic victims, since you know they'd do 10x worse to the Jews if they could get away with it.
It's really tempting to see this as a theological thing, with weirdo evangelicals in government pushing for their bizarre Israel worship, a writ-large version of this comments section (heh). However, I'm not sure that's the tack when it comes to actual politics. This same pattern repeats in Europe (Ukraine) and East Asia (Taiwan), where allies on the periphery of the American empire take on a grand moral dimension that far outstrips their size and importance, and cannot be satisfied with anything less than a blank check which the imperial mandarins are only too willing to provide.
I think there are several issues that are difficult to disentangle:
1. Theological beliefs about the Jews (whoever they are!) Even some non-Evangelicals seem to accept these heresies.
2. Neocon US-supremacism.
3. Protestant belief that Catholics and Orthodox aren’t really Christian.
4. US celebration of settler societies, due to its history.
5. Western contempt for non-Westerners, tied to the rather odd perception of Israel as Western, so it’s a sort of civilised outpost in a barbarous region.
6. Straightforward racism, combined with ignorance of many Israelis not being white. I think this is the least important component, but the one that the campus demonstrators pick up on.
Perfect summary. Note that many on the U.S. right do not see (or ignore) how #2 fits in, while for many on the left that's ALL they see.
I know. I really wish people would be more willing to see the way that the economic hard-right and sociocultural liberalism go hand in glove.
Lasch warned conservatives of this way back in 1990. Very few listened. And here we are.
The economic hard-right is in fact not even hard-right. It is a liberal free market economy. I don’t think Joseph de Maistre or Louis de Bonald or Adam Müller or Friedrich Carl von Savigny or Karl Ludwig von Haller or the Slavophiles (Ivan Kireyevsky, Aleksey Khomyakov and Konstantin Aksakov) would have supported it. At least the majority of them wouldn’t.
Good point. Conservatism and liberalism are both fluid.
They change with time to a certain extent. I guess one could say that socialism is tied to equality, liberalism to freedom and conservatism to tradition.
The ideal of a completely free market economy was a liberal idea born in Britain.
In my country the people you called conservatives in America (who support a fully free market economy and religion / tradition) we called liberal-conservative.
Liberal - because they support a market as free as possible
Conservative - because they support religion and tradition
So Liberal-Conservative.
They are often nice people. They could always point to the US as an example of a very free market and religiosity coexisting together. However as that has fallen apart I suspect there will be less and less of them.
I meant right-wing in a modern sense.
It’s degenerated into post-ideological opportunism and market based looting.
More American than modern. In Germany the fully free market economy is supported only by the small FDP party - a liberal party in the center of Germany’s left-right spectrum.
Except Javier Milei and Janusz Korwin-Mikke, both very eccentric, I cannot recall any right-wing politician outside the US and UK who supports a fully free market economy. Of course I don’t pay attention to most countries so maybe there are more - but they are certainly rare.
No it is not that. Look at Georgia where a high-handed elite just postponed EU membership and the people revolted.
Look at the high-handed elites of Russia and China.
Besides only the US has the most brutal form of capitalism. Most European countries have a strong social safety net. You just don’t know what you are talking about.
Why the would any nation want to join the EU? It's like wanting to board the Titanic after it hit the iceberg and started taking on water.
Really? My country - Poland - went from a very poor country to a moderately wealthy country. Maybe the Georgian people want to experience the same. Where is the Titanic?
Look at Russia. A country as rich in natural resources as Russia should have a tremendously rich nation. Putin however doesn’t care about that and prefers to keep them poor. Maybe Georgians don’t want to remain as poor as the Russians?
It is also amazing that you describe Georgian people who fled the Bolsheviks to avoid being murdered as simply “French Born”.
I don't know enough about Poland to comment on things there about how the EU has benefited your nation. All I know is when I was in the UK 16 years ago most of the service workers in London were Polish and the UK was also part of the EU at the time. But I do know thousands of Polish soldiers have died in Ukraine (wearing Ukrainian uniforms). If Poland was not so hopelessly (and illogically) anti Russian they could be like Hungary and have it's cake and eat it to. They would be awash in cheap Russian oil and gas while remaining a member of the EU and staying out of the conflict in Ukraine. They didn't do that though. Why? I think Galicia is the reason why. Don't you? Why else would Poland throw in their lot with the very kind of Banderists who butchered thousands of Poles in Volyn? I think Polish designs on Galicia would be the only logical conclusion .
Poles are always very conscious of being between Germany and Russia. As bad as our history with the Ukrainians has been they never ended Poland. Meanwhile two German states (Prussia and Austria) and Russia ended Poland’s existence in 1795. When we regained our existence in 1918 the same thing happened in 1939 - Germany and Russia made a deal and our country was gone.
Adolf Bocheński wrote “Between Germany and Russia” in 1937. It was a book that tried to dispassionately analyze Poland’s international position without moralism and emotion so often present in previous Polish analyses (irrationally evil neighbors attack us for no reason at all). He was also perhaps the only educated Pole who realized that FDR and Churchill are planning to betray us and give us over to Stalin (he was killed in action during the Italian campaign).
So that is the eternal Polish conundrum - how to exist between Germany and Russia. After the War in exile in Paris Jerzy Giedroyć and Juliusz Mieroszewski proposed a solution - the ULB doctrine.
Let’s create an independent Ukraine and Lithuania and Belarus and so have a buffer zone against Russia. That way Germany and Russia won’t be able to make an agreement and destroy us - because there will be Lithuania and Belarus and Ukraine in the way.
So fighting to prevent Russia from absorbing Ukraine is not strange given what happens when we directly border Russia.
Plus Jarosław Kaczyński (the leader of the Polish right-wing) believes Putin murdered his twin brother and 95 other people by blowing up a plane on which they were traveling in 2010.
A lot of Europeans like the EU, just not the migration and cultural policies. It’s murky to know who’s who in the internal fights of another country. Each situation is unique.
The overwhelming majority of Georgians want to join the EU. You can cry about it but it won’t matter. Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be freed from the Russian army. Once Georgia is in the EU as the Georgians want you will cry bitter tears and the Georgians will laugh.
So the Georgian People didn't vote for the current Georgian government? You think the Abkhazians and Ossetians want to be ruled by Georgians after the events of 2008?
South Ossetia is even more laughable than Kosovo. It is unable to exist independently and should be a part of Georgia. On Abkhazia we can have a conversation - as it would be capable of existing without Russia.
The Georgian people voted for the current government but overwhelmingly support joining the EU. The alternative - existing as Russia’s satellite- is unpopular. Understandably given Georgian history.
Murdering Boris Nemtsov is a worse sin than a million same-sex marriages. Refusing to provide medical care for Sergei Magnitsky in prison for gall stones, pancreatitis, and a blocked gall bladder and then ordering him beaten to death is a worse sin than a million same-sex marriages. Poisoning people and throwing them out of windows are worse sins than a million same-sex marriages.
I very closely observed the news (both Western and Russian) during the 2008 war. Georgian troops massacred civilians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Sakashvilli was insane to launch artillery strikes on Russian troops in Abkhazia. The Neocons in the Bush Administration led him to believe he had full American support (and of course that war was about Sakashvilli’s desire for Georgia to join NATO which Russia always rejected for good reason). Thankfully the Georgian Government now (which is in no way Pro Russian is it Anti Western) is much more pragmatic and nearly wants to avoid becoming a second NATO front in for what would be for Georgia a catastrophic war with Russia. Georgia Dream doesn't want to follow Kiev 's lead and who can blame them?
OK but I wonder if they are not missing their chance. Now that Russia is busy elsewhere - now is the time to regain control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Or at least South Ossetia.
I'm sorry. That's insane. Georgia would get destroyed. That's why the Georgian People voted for the current government that you want to see get overthrown in a Tblisi Maidan.
Who was thrown out of windows? Political opponents?
I think they were mostly former allies and subordinates of Putin, who have fallen out of favor.
As long as America can leave NATO, Georgia can do what it wishes.
In fact EU could be described as vassalhood of smaller countries to Germany and France. But there is no vassalhood to Washington D.C. In fact both Germany and France refused to join the US in invading Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld attacked them for it and called them “Old Europe” in opposition to eastern “New Europe”.
Germany and France had more independence 20 years ago. That's not the case anymore. Remember Victoria Nuland’s, “Fu#$ the EU!”, who won that one the EU or Washington? The best thing for Europe is good working relations with Russia and peace in Ukraine. No European nation benefits from any of this. This is all to preserve the current US Hegemony and keep the whole charade based on the fiat currency known as the US Dollar from imploding. Remember the deal Russia offered Yanukovich before the Maidan Coup. He said there could be a deal where Ukraine could enter into a Free Trade Agreement with the EU while joining the Eurasian Union. That would have been a win, win, win for Ukraine but the Americans and Brits rejected it because it meant that Ukraine would not be joining NATO.
Oh good grief, the US dollar is no where near imploding! Where does this nonsense come from? Maybe the Bitcoin shysters trying to pump up their Ponzi scheme b y spreading disinformatsiya and bilk the rubes? Whatever weaknesses the dollar has the other major world currencies are worse.
What's the US dollar backed by Jon?
The whole US economy. Bitcoin is pure vaporware, no better than monopoly money.
And what's the US economy based on? Do we produce anything anymore? It's based completely on finance banking. As for Bitcoin. I don't trust it. I don't have any money in it, but a good friend of mine who was very savvy with investments and was a day trader had a lot of his money invested in Bitcoin.
Not buying it. The libertarian world view is pretty rigid
I saw you're restacking Anne Applebaum so of course you're not going to agree with anything I have to say.
It's worse...... And Timothy Snyder.
Did you know that Rod's hero Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was an unapologetic Russian Nationalist who refused to meet with Boris Yeltsin because he considered him a Washington puppet and a disgrace to Russia but he did meet and shake hands with President Vladimir Putin. What does that tell you?
If you read his book The Russian Question at the end of the 20th Century you would know that Solzhenitsyn was ahead of his time (long before Alexander Dugin) in his idea of a union state between Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. He also was a proponent of Eurasian Sovereignty and was fiercely hostile to NATO after NATO bombed the Orthodox Serbs in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Solzhenitsyn is without a doubt a hero of mine too.
And many of the neo-con crowd are cheering on the "rebels" besieging Damascus. If the "rebels" prevail anticipate a new rush of gore-porn beheadings, flayings, burning alive and other assorted depravities, all cheered on the the Bulwark/Weekly Standard/Dispatch crowd.
Not so far.
Georgian schools teach Orthodox Christianity which probably makes the country a target as well as getting caught up in East vs West part 2. The Cold War sequel, it’s dumber and more dangerous.
Germany also teaches Christianity in schools. So does Greece (and Orthodox Christianity too). So does Poland (although you can opt out).
Its all plausible, but hard to see clearly through the fog. I am reminded of the father of a long-ago co-worker who traveled on business in post-1990 eastern Europe. He once remarked that CNN could make the half time show at a sporting even look like a popular revolution.
I wouldn't put it past any number of forces to forestall this election. I also wouldn't put it past Russia to be interfering in an election any way they could. I didn't put much stock in "Russian interference" in U.S. elections. No doubt they were stirring the pot, but it all seemed like Spy v. Spy stuff -- finding ways to interfere in each other's operations is what large powers with extensive espionage networks do.
Once upon a time, Poland was an independent kingdom with an elected monarchy. There was a small body of men with noble titles who had the right to vote on the next king. Every larger kingdom or empire, including Sweden, Russia, Austria, Prussia and others expended enormous sums trying to bribe the electors to pick the monarch various external powers favored. Its a hazard, although of a different nature when an entire mass electorate has to be swayed.
Rod is hearing from people on the ground in Romania, but he is hearing from people with a point of view. Is it representative of a majority of Romanians? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm too familiar with how various factions in the USA pontificate that "the people want" whatever it is a given faction is peddling. It can become nauseating. From some of what has been posted here, it sounds like this dark horse candidate may be quite anti-Russian. That would be quite a swirl and eddy if western interests hostile to Russia and favorable to LGBTQWERTY imperialism opposed a candidate who is more anti-Russian than they are because he's going to take down the rainbow flags. But stranger things have happened.
Which brings us to the notion that western agencies have "unleashed the Wahabi Takfiri hordes into Syria." I kind of would have thought by now that these forces were off the list of people to support. But the rise of the Wahabbi was encouraged by the CIA to reduce left-wing influence in the middle east.
Its not a good situation when the choice is Bashar Assad v. the heirs of Osama bin Laden, and Netanyahu is supporting the Islamists... if that is accurate. Its all very cloudy at present.
New here. Just to be clear: you're defending Assad?
I've been defending Assad since the "International Community" first set Syria on fire in 2011 seeking to overthrow the Syrian Government like they did to Libya. Assad was a good leader especially for the Christians of Syria who were always protected under his rule. So absolutely I'm defending him. I make no bones about it. I hate the Neocons in Washington. They are the absolute scum of the earth and they're traitors to the Real America the Constitutional Republic.
It's important to note that Lasconi, Georgescu's opponent, has also condemned this ruling.
From the Guardian:
'However, Lasconi, the pro-European candidate, condemned the ruling. “The constitutional court’s decision is illegal, amoral and crushes the very essence of democracy, voting,” she said.'
Not knowing anything about the Romanian candidates motivated me to look at the results of the first round of elections. Lasconi has really no support outside Bucharest. We see in this election the same results as in France and the U.S.: a very large split between the interests of rural and urban voters.
I've read that many of the Romanian diaspora voted for Georgescu. They're not too happy cleaning toilets in Brussels or London. On the other hand, the Moldovan diaspora voted overwhelmingly for the pro-EU/NATO Sandu. Maybe they found a way to have the Eritreans and Afghans clean those same toilets...
It is interesting that the urban-rural political split prevails in most of the modern world these days.
Yes. It would seem we have replaced agricultural fertility with human infertility. Yes, a broad brush, but largely true.
Is direct U.S. involvement in Romanian politics and governance a parting gift from the Biden administration? Probably. Will such activities promote long term political stability and prosperity in Romania and peace in the region? Probably not. I haven’t read anything in the U.S. press about recent events in Romania, but so much is happening that I may have overlooked it. January 20 can’t come too soon.
Let's not call it "the Biden Administration." He has never been in charge. More likely part of the puppet masters' efforts to further destabilize the world before Trump comes into office. Thus, further complicating his efforts to undermine their globalizing efforts.
Bingo. Get as much done before Jan. 20 throws the spanner into the works.
I am sure that none of Trump's people are talking to the FBI. No one will want to be the next Gen. Flynn.
Why Flynn never lawyered up before talking to the G-men is beyond me. He totally fell into their perjury trap.
IMO Trump should sign an executive order banning 'process' prosecutions without accusations of non-process crimes. If the FBI ever questioned me about specifics of my past I would quickly be accused of perjury because I would not could not remember specific dates and times. Avoidance of process crimes in many cases requires almost inhuman powers of recollection - it is borderline police state tactics.
Right. The FBI can nail anyone in the country for some sort of crime. For instance, four months ago I paid a man $340 cash for two cords of firewood knowing that the probability was that he would not declare it as income. I can't prove that, however. Am I committing a crime? I don't think so. But the FBI might think otherwise.
I wouldn't have flatulence with the FBI present. You never know what might be held against you.
“their globalizing efforts”
What does this even mean? Care to explain what are “globalizing efforts”? No you won’t because you don’t know what it means either.
Let's look at three definitions:
1. Economic. The process by which people and goods move easily across borders. Principally, it's an economic concept – the integration of markets, trade and investments with few barriers to slow the flow of products and services between nations.
2. Political. The growth of the worldwide political system, both in size and complexity. That system includes national governments, their governmental and intergovernmental organizations as well as government-independent elements of global civil society such as international non-governmental organizations and social movement organizations. One of the key aspects of political globalization is the declining importance of the nation-state and the rise of other actors on the political scene.
3. Cultural globalization. The phenomenon by which the experience of everyday life, as influenced by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, reflects a standardization of cultural expressions around the world. Propelled by the efficiency or appeal of wireless communications, electronic commerce, popular culture, and international travel, globalization has been seen as a trend toward homogeneity that will eventually make human experience everywhere essentially the same. This appears, however, to be an overstatement of the phenomenon. Although homogenizing influences do indeed exist, they are far from creating anything akin to a single world culture.
Perhaps what is going on in Romania is of the political species, with the actual (and not rhetorical) elimination of the democratic process to further the globalists efforts in undermining the nation-state, promoting a war in Ukraine, etc.
The cultural effort has been unremitting immigration in Europe and America to undermine national identity and reduce humans to a single, undistinguished entity.
I'm sure others can provide more examples.
Personally, I think that nos. 2 and 3 are pursued largely for the sake of no.1. We used to worry about a coming "one world government." I don't think you need that if you have a "one world economy." No. 3 needs to produce only enough cultural homogeneity to grease the skids for no. 1. You won't end up with a single world culture, but instead a universal consumerist culture laid over top of the various national and regional ones: "Your native culture and cuisine are lovely. By the way here's your smartphone."
I don't know. Promoting LGBTQetc. globally doesn't seem directly related to economic issues. It does eliminate cultural norms, however.
I think that cultural traditionalism tends to act as a buffer to capital's "universal solvent" qualities. By weakening cultural norms you weaken the resistance.
People and ‘families’ without children are much less resistant to various economic demands. For example, they work longer hours and spend more on nonessentials. Once economic actors became rainbow color blind LGBT fitted right in.
You do realize that destabilization would hurt all three globalizations? Regardless of which definition you would choose - economic, political or cultural- they would all be hurt by destabilization?
Yet you wrote: “to further destabilize the world before Trump comes into office. Thus, further complicating his efforts to undermine their globalizing efforts.”
If they want a globalized world why would they destabilize it? This does not make sense. Destabilization hurts globalization.
The destabilization of the world is not a problem for globalists. Covid, George Floyd, the attack on the family at a minimum were used to destabilize societies. They all allowed global elites to concentrate power. They certainly did in the political and cultural domain, and I suggest in the economic domain. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste. Better yet, why not create a crisis to move your team forward. Lenin came to power out of war.
Why not destabilize things further to prevent Trump from getting the upper hand and further your own position?
“Lenin came to power out of war.”
Yes but the globalists are already in power. They don’t need to gain power, they already have it.
Covid was an accidental lab leak. George Floyd was a woke religious freakout. These things were not planned.
I would suggest to you that canceling the first round of Romania’s election was not a move to destabilize. It was an artless and counterproductive attempt to stabilize.
An unknown man who maybe wants to take Romania out of NATO and the EU destabilized the situation. Canceling the election is an attempt to bring back stability. I don’t think it will work.
They want to destabilize individual nations to make them easier to dominate. An stable U.S. is less trouble than a stable, united one. Same for France, Germany, etc, You seem determined to ignore reality and the last 30 years of hsitory.
“An stable U.S. is less trouble than a stable, united one”
For American politicians it is not less trouble. On the contrary - the Republicans lost their party to a hostile takeover by a reality TV star. The Democrats meanwhile won against said TV star once and lost twice. So the elites of both parties lost due to instability.
I would understand your point if you claimed that US elites destabilize every country except the US so they can rule them. But you are saying that they are also destabilizing their own country on purpose. That would be a crazy self-defeating thing to do.
Excellent answer. And globalism is at the heart of many of our current problems.
Could we call it the Neo-Biden Adminstration?
Did you see that David French is hoping that one of the last things "Biden" does is step up US/NATO involvement in Ukraine before he leaves office? And not a hint therein of ending the conflict.
He would, wouldn’t he!
French is mentally off the rails. I am sure Dubya, Cheney, Kristol, Frum etc. agree.
Except that seems to be what's going on. The most benevolent interpretation of what Washington is fomenting in Ukraine is that it's preparing a nice crap sandwich for Trump and Rubio. The worst is that they light the fuse for World War III hoping it goes off after Jan. 20.
Please ask Eldridge Colby if he thinks there is any chance of World War III. He is the Right’s favorite realist foreign policy expert and very pro-Trump. Yet on his twitter he never mentioned a possibility of World War III. Not even once.
Whatever you want to say about Dubya he is a Christian unlike a certain proudful man recently elected president of the US.
I am not sure whether Methodism remains a Christian religion. From what I can tell, Methodism is a society of leftist social workers parading as a religion. The most famous Methodist today is Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman of an evil temperament.
Bush was born again in 1986. The left was terrified that Bush wanted to create a theocracy out of the US. I remember that because I was reading my father’s First Things magazines and they covered the theocracy panic.
I found an article just now on jstor titled “Dangerous Religion: George W. Bush's Theology of Empire”. I am unable to access most of it but here is a sentence from it: “President Bush uses religious language more than any president in U.S. history.”
Of course the author thinks that is bad.
(Luke 6:43–45)
15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’
The United Methodist Church has gone down that route. But it has caused a splintering, with many Christians leaving that umbrella. I know some of them personally.
But given Bush's hardcore globalist inclinations, I've doubts about th trueness of his faith. And there is no way Hillary is.
I don't know whether my town United Methodist Church has split from the main church but I can guess it hasn't. The current pastor is a woman, the former pastor was a woman, they keep Boy Scout gear in their parking lot and the left-wing Quaker Democrat in my neighborhood was friends with the old pastor.
I hope so too and so do the Ukrainian people.
Why, so their inevitable loss takes longer and more people die? Glad you're willing to fight to the last drop of their blood.
No, the majority of Ukrainians support a peace settlement now and I agree. But with that peace settlement there needs to be more US / NATO involvement.
What French is calling for is more involvement, period. He didn't mention anything about a settlement (I said that above).
Jzefi is really gung how about outside forces coming in to save his ass.
Writing us from the frontline eh? You do understand we are broke right? Ukraine offers exactly zero benefit to us.
Thank you, Rod, for highlighting this as I've not read about recent developments. As you rightly noted, the infamous Victoria Nuland (she that spawned the beginnings of color revolution in Ukraine), is likely a prime mover in this travesty.
The State Dept official line is reminiscent of what all the Democrats have been saying about "democracy" here--to wit, the "Ignorant" US voters must not care about democracy since we voted in Donald Trump. This despite the fact that voters that considered "democracy" a key issue voted for Trump. (iirc, about 58% or so in that group...it was in a Gallup poll).
The Orwell-esque torture of language continues in how such terms as "democracy" are defined.
I will pray for peaceful but fair resolution of this issue for the poor Romanians, who've already endured so much.
Again - Victoria Nuland wanted Yanukovych to stay and to accept a pro-Western government under prime minister Yatsenyuk. It was the Ukrainan protesters who threw Yanukovych out.
It has been revealed that the Democrats/the Left define "democracy", "we must save democracy" as them obtaining and keeping power.
When the will of the voters does not go their way, "democracy has lost." And their lack of self awareness is staggering.
Ursula’s Europe is going to keep getting more interesting. Pretty much across the board the citizenry just isn’t buying it anymore. This recent “We’re cancelling democracy to protect democracy” looks soooo threadbare. And similar moves are coming in other states, no doubt. Cf. Germany.
Exactly. The Russian attacks on Romania are "unprecedented"? Perhaps to Romania, but the Baltic Republics have endured Russian attacks for years without cancelling any elections.
And as far as Washington is concerned, we have travelled very far since 1864, when Abraham Lincoln wrote "We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."
Lincoln’s is the proper reply to our State Department here.
I read somewhere that Lincoln unconstitutionally worked to carve off West Virginia from Confederate Virginia as thumb on the scale for the 1864 elections. Not sure how true that is. Anyone else? Derek, Bobby or other Southern history buffs?
I'm not sure how West Virginia was formed. The west had few slaves and was strongly against secession. Federal forces overwhelmed Confederate forces in what is now West Virginia in 1861 and 62. In separate commands, both Lee and Jackson suffered setbacks. The town of Romney, twenty miles west of me, changed hands something like fifty times. Incidentally, the county where I live, Hampshire, only joined West Virginia because strongly pro-Union Mineral County was attached to ours at the time. Hampshire County was very split, 1500 men serving the Confederacy and 1300 the Union.
Just looked it up: Lincoln had very little to do with the creation of West Virginia. It was entirely a grass roots movement. Furthermore, it began in 1861 as a rejection of Virginia's secession and as the formation of an alternate to the state government in Richmond. On June 20, 1861, this rump government at the Wheeling Convention elected a governor and two U.S. senators, who were promptly recognized by the Federal government as Virginia's (not West Virginia's) senators. The push to convert this rump government to a new state by secession from Virginia came two months later in August 1861, long before the 1864 elections were in sight. Until the creation of West Virginia in 1863 it was known as the Restored Government of Virginia.
PS: The Restored Government of Virginia held elections in 1862; state legislators were elected to the Wheeling government not only from West Virginia but also from Arlington, Alexandria, and the Delmarva Peninsula.
What was then the west of Virginia was as it is today, mountain people with nothing in common with the Tidewater or anything else south of D.C., including slavery. It was they who wanted to secede. How was carving WV from VA unconstitutional? Did Lincoln need to ask Davis's permission? He beat McClellan pretty decisively, anyway.
People have tried to say West Virginia was unconstitutionally formed as the Constitution says no state can be formed from the territory of another state without the original state’s permission. However, West Virginia presented itself as the loyal to the Union government of Virginia, not a separate state. And Confederacy apologists forget one thing, if they’re right, Virginia left the Union & was no longer under the US Constitution. It is interesting which counties went & which stayed with Virginia. Lots of trans Allegheny counties such as Highland, Bsth, Allegheny & the far SW “toe” of Virginia stayed. Never did find out why exactly. But yeah Montani Semper Liberari & all that.
Aldo apparently a pro Union county in NE Alabama tried to secede from the Confederacy. Every CSA state except South Carolina had men volunteering to fight for the Union. 60% of Virginia’s US Army officers remained loyal, so Lee was something of an outlier. The Civil War was not the simple North vs South morality play that we learned in history class. On either side.
Correct. There were state secession movements all up and down the Appalachian Mountains. That is in part why Appalachia got a reputation for poverty: beyond isolation and the coal economy, the post-Reconstruction state governments basically defunded the Appalachian counties to exact revenge.
Admiral Farragut was a Virginian.
Winston County, Alabama remained loyal to the Union. It was mountainous and didn't have a slave culture. Jones County, Mississippi remained loyal to the Union. It was heavily pinewoods with a hardscrabble agriculture. Southern Maryland was very pro-Confederate while Western Maryland was very pro-Union.
Martha, yet the Union did not recognize Virginia's secession so the Lincoln government considered Virginia part of the USA. Just a quibble. As for why certain Allegheny counties in Virginia stayed and some left the Union, I think Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Campaign of 1862 had much to do with it. Jackson's victories limited Union success to modern day West Virginia but not much more until 1864 as the war reached its end.
If one wanted to be legalistic, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were unconstitutional as was West Virginia's secession from Virginia. But government is not as clean and sterile as a hospital operating room.
Legalistically, the Union recognized the Wheeling government as the legitimate government of Virginia (as I posted above, in 1862 it had state representatives from the Tidewater and Arlington and Alexandria too), and so when that government approved West Virginia secession it did not run afoul of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Regarding the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, what was unconstitutional? Their passage by Reconstruction state legislatures? The resolution of Congress that would have refused to seat members of Congress from Confederate states if they refused to pass the Amendments?
I find arguments that these were unconstitutional acts to be Lost Cause mythology. "Have you no interest in what has become of your own husband, Mrs. Kennedy?...He's lying out on Decatur Road with a bullet in his head."
You’re thinking of Nevada, which they squeezed in under the wire in 1864.
Well he did void their election results so...
??
Mr. Mader, I wonder what will happen if the Germans cancel the AfD while Trump is in office. Will Trump have the guts to come down hard on Germany? Take all of our troops out of undemocratic Germany. Drop out of NATO altogether? Sever diplomatic ties?
I’m not sure what a Trump Administration would do. I suspect it would depend on how glaringly anti-democratic the cancellation was. Also, would those supporting the outlawed party hit the streets, organize strikes, etc.? That would be key. If the contest between cancelling elites and populist discontent began to boil, then I suspect Trump would start to apply concrete pressure. But Trump and his team would want to see the European masses themselves putting skin in the game. If they prove unwilling to stand up for themselves, then I think Trump’s reaction would be “To hell with ‘em.”
And all this ignores how at least part of Europe’s malaise is due to its subservience to Washington. How might Trump II impact that? Dunno.
In any case, Europe is almost certainly lurching toward a showdown, no? The UK too. The main role a Trump Administration is likely to play is as exemplar. Europeans will say, “The Americans can send their Deep State packing, why can’t we?”
But to work as exemplar, Trump II has to show concrete progress.
This is first-rate, but how do you see the UK "lurching for a showdown"? The Tories are gelded (Sunak supports the euthanasia law) and Labour's majority is stunning. I don't think they're polishing the pitchforks in Derbyshire, if that's what you mean.
Labour's majority in Parliament is stunning. Their electoral majority is hardly that.
A weakness of the modern British parliament system is that a government tends to be an elected dictatorship. Keir Starmer is effectively dictator of Britain for 4 1/2 more years unless his own party decides to dump him.
It’s likely a slower lurch. But yes, given the infinitely feckless Tories, it’s hard to see how an opposition will coalesce.
I think things will come to a head sooner in France, Germany, etc.
“Take all of our troops out of undemocratic Germany. Drop out of NATO altogether?”
Why wouldn’t you simply drop Germany out of NATO? Why leave an organization which you mostly control?
Because NATO's purpose ended in 1991 when the old Soviet Union collapsed. As a conservative American, I believe NATO should have been dissolved shortly after the end of the USSR.
Except within each country there are powerful forces that want to yank the wheel back from the people who have had enough. What the Italian judiciary is trying to do to
Giorgia isn't anywhere near actually cancelling and election, but it's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
I see a very real possibility that wheel will be yanked back. In the US too. But whichever way things go, it’s going to get uglier in coming years.
The Blob doesn’t come as close as it did to achieving its dreams only to give up without a fight.
This is just what I said elsewhere, about Obama's really incredible speech of earlier this week. They're ready to go.
I think we agree. I.e., there’s reason to celebrate the election, the momentum, the sheer rebuke of it all. But a rebuke fixes very little. It’s all uphill from here.
I think Trump’s team knows that, but will Trump himself cut stupid compromises along the way? And: Will the public be able to handle any blowback—say, seriously stalled budgets, etc.? Unless there’s some pain, there’s no gain.
One good thing about that manic fellow in Argentina, he told the population straight: “This is going to be painful.” We don’t have anywhere near the mess Argentina has, but Trump could use a little of that straight talk, I’d say.
The American people are afraid of pain.
Problem is, if there’s any pain, most of the public, even those who voted Trump, will see it as “Trump is doing a bad job.” There needs to be honest messaging from him and his team to counteract it. Sooner rather than later.
“Pretty much across the board the citizenry just isn’t buying it anymore”
The Polish people buy it because we benefited greatly from EU membership. We are incomparably wealthier than before. In fact Civic Platform gained power recently and during the campaign accused the right-wing Law and Justice party of wanting to pull Poland out of the EU. Law and Justice protested and said it was a lie.
“And similar moves are coming in other states, no doubt. Cf. Germany.”
Unfortunately - unlike the right-wing parties of France or Italy - the German AfD party is reportedly pretty crazy.
Thanks for this update. I was curious how Tusk’s aggressive takeover is faring. Sad to hear it’s still faring well. EU uses bullying and naked bribery to keep its members in line.
The EU's liberal mask is coming off:
Hungary: "you will enact our policies or we will bankrupt you"
Georgia: "you voted against us so we'll fund a coup against you"
Romania: "the voting will continue until you vote the way we want."
France: "if you vote for the far-right, we'll have to examine your deficit."
Italy: "we have tools... wait, you're playing ball now, never mind."
The EU is example A of something I've been pushing for a while now: liberal democracy is an oxymoron. The tension between the terms is an unstable equilibrium that decays into liberal-authoritarianism (the tyranny of the minority) or true democracy (the tyranny of the majority.)
European countries have centuries of history as oligarchies, so I predict most of Western Europe will end up as liberal-authoritarians: a resurrected nobility/peasant system. The Eastern Europeans have a similar history, but were shaped profoundly by decades of totalitarian rule under communism, so they may go hard the other way. We'll see.
If you’ve written anything laying out your argument re: an “unstable equilibrium” fated to decay, I’d be interested to read it. I can see various mechanisms myself, agree with some of Deneen’s arguments in his main thesis years ago. One question for me is: Do republics with constitutions based on liberal principles inevitably create cultures that undo the founding order?
One main mechanism I see at work isn’t mysterious in the least. To win elections, candidates and parties buy votes by promising voters goods that the state should not deliver. Eventually, to implement their promises, a bureacracy arises. Which of course naturally grows, becoming the managerial elite we now have.
Who formulated the law: “Any organization that is not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing.”
Robert Conquest's 2nd Law of Politics.
Tyler Cohen wrote about why it appears to hold a few years ago: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/how-and-why-is-conquests-second-law-true.html Tyler's not the best person to analyze this, since as a libertarian, his liberalism is just oriented a little differently.
I will PM you my original piece entitled "Liberal Democracy Is An Oxymoron". Green light me for PM. It is in the same vein as Deneen. No online publisher has bit on it, which probably means I'm just not a very good writer (not surprising, since my background is in engineering and CS). My own substack is about theology not politics.
I really didn't think through my "unstable equilibrium" comment before writing the phrase. It just felt accurate, and re-reading it now, I'm pretty sure it is. Deneen nails one possible avenue of decay (liberal authoritarianism), but there clearly is a second one possible. I can't think of any countries that are sliding in the direction of "excess democracy" though.
Just greenlighted you. Look forward to reading your piece.
I know that the US liberal-globalist elite constantly intervenes in other nations, but I'm actually taken aback that it's this blatant.
Heard some more about this issue tonight listening to a podcast. Georgescu's opponent is apparently backed by Soros...fwiw. Another aspect to this is that the U.S. has troops stationed in Romania (iirc, about 1000 soldiers), which adds piquancy to the State Dept interference.
Worth the listen to the Mike Benz appearance on Joe Rogan to better grasp the interrelationship of our IC, State Dept and progressive policies.
Mostly support types, though. Like the seabees I was with who were refurbishing a former Soviet fighter base.
When complete, NATO's new airbase in Romania will be larger than Ramstein. I pity the poor Romanians (and the Poles, Balts,...). When war breaks out, their nation will be laid to waste.
Where is it?
https://thedefensepost.com/2024/03/21/largest-nato-europe-base-romania/
What are you even talking about? If the Balts were not in NATO they would already be occupied by Russia.
Or maybe if we'd have stopped trying to expand NATO Russia wouldn't be in Ukraine....
Putin has said that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
My opinion is the exact opposite- it was the greatest thing to happen in the 20th century.
Regarding NATO expansion it will perhaps interest you that as soon as the Russian army left our country we immediately started pressuring the US to let us into NATO.
“I know that the US liberal-globalist elite constantly intervenes in other nations”
So you must know that the globalist elite (the UN) supports the Palestinians and the US elite supports Israel.
What do you thinks of the Chinese-Russian globalist elite and their constant interventions in other nations? Like for instance poisoning Yushchenko and destroying his face or stealing Abkhazia and Ossetia from Georgia or the planned murder of Armin Papperger, the CEO of Rheinmetall or the murders committed in the UK and Germany?
Rod,
Regarding your conversation with “Metaverse” man, you said, “But there is something particular about places and spaces that have been hallowed.”
When I went to see you down in Birmingham, that was the first time I had ever been in an Orthodox church (we came for the prayer that morning). I could certainly feel the reverence of the people who came that morning, and since my wife kept taking pictures and we were the last to leave, I could still sense the hallowedness of the place even without the people there. My wife particularly identifies with such spaces because she was touched as a child going into a Catholic church. There is certainly something special about the Orthodox form of worship.
Even still, I can identify with Metaverse man as well. You may see his worship as more emotionally based, and indeed he may have a lot of emotion, but don’t discount how deep his experience with God may run. There are pros and cons to everything. When you are not physically present with other people you lose part of the deeper human connection that you can enjoy with people. On the other hand, typically, you have to restrain your worship when you’re in a church building with other people. Some places will frown on people even raising their hands to worship God, let alone dancing with all their hearts. I don’t begrudge the man wanting to express his heart to God in total freedom. If he should be able to learn something from you, then you should also be able to learn something from him.
In the 1990’s, I took my family as often as possible, driving 500 miles from Tucson to Pasadena, to go to a place called Mott Auditorium. Man, that place was special. We would go for the conferences they held there, and I would start standing in line very early in the morning to get a seat as close to the front as I could, and then we would be there all day until late at night. Even standing in line was deeply enjoyable because you were there with others who were as hungry for God as you were. But the reason I wanted to get near the front was because you could feel the presence of God more there. It was like coming near a nuclear reactor. You wanted to get as close as you could. I was forever annihilated by God in that place.
Mott Auditorium wasn’t hallowed because people held church there. It wasn’t hallowed because of the icons or other signs of Christian worship (they had none of those). It was hallowed simply because God was showing up there. Children saw the place filled with angels. People were healed. Lives were changed. And many, many people fell in love with God in ways they never imagined were possible.
Even more, I firmly believe that Mott Auditorium saved our nation. It was from the people there, who held a day a fasting and prayer on the mall in D.C. just before the 2000 election (that drew about 400,000 people), that I think tilted the election to Bush. It was from those same people that a similar day of fasting and prayer was held this year in D.C., that I also think changed the direction our nation has been heading. I took my family to the first one. My daughter took her daughter to the second one, while we listened online.
More than any other place, Mott Auditorium in Pasadena changed our lives. But if we went there today… it wouldn’t nearly be the same as it used to be, in part because the church there has moved on to another facility, in part because they no longer have meetings there like they used to, but I suspect there are many fewer angels there today than there used to be as well.
Don’t look down on temporary revivals. Sure, the revival itself fades out. But the people changed by the revival go on to do amazing things for God. The Azusa street revival of the early 1900’s has led to several hundred million Pentecostals coming to God worldwide. The Toronto Blessing revival (that Mott Auditorium was part of) has led to many millions of people being saved and tens of thousands of churches being planted. Our world has been changed by it, and continues to be changed by it. One man transformed by the Toronto Blessing has led over a million Muslims to Jesus in Pakistan alone. Another man transformed at the Pasadena church has likewise saved millions around the world. Burned out missionaries from Africa have seen God do incredible things, even in the midst of civil war and the killing of their pastors (they have trained thousands of pastors there). They hold church in grass shacks, under trees, and even in garbage dumps. And God shows up.
I know you will soon be going to Mount Athos. You should also go visit Heidi Baker in Mozambique – and go with her to the garbage dumps there. Some spaces are indeed hallowed. Other spaces are filled with suffering. What matters is, are people encountering God and being transformed in those spaces. Are lives being changed.
We met a beautiful Palestinian Christian lady at the church in Birmingham, who has gone there for many years. She was beautiful because she has such a heart for God. I’m sure the space there in Birmingham has helped her stay close to God like that. So God bless that Orthodox church. Personally, I’d rather go to a garbage dump where God shows up and transforms the lives of people who have no hope. And then let them dance on the garbage worshipping the Lord.
Don’t ever discount what can happen when people encounter Jesus. If Metaverse man can worship God in spirit and truth virtually. Let him. And try to learn from him. As we, who are not Orthodox, try to learn from you.
"But the reason I wanted to get near the front was because you could feel the presence of God more there. It was like coming near a nuclear reactor. You wanted to get as close as you could. I was forever annihilated by God in that place."
As a former Charismatic I think this is a faulty interpretation. I remember those feelings well, but they had far more to do with emotion and psychology than with the presence of God. Frankly, you get the same at a rock concert. And make it a Christian rock concert and you can throw God in too. People always gravitate to the front in such circumstances.
I don't mean to toss a wet blanket on your enthusiasm, but having spent close to 20 years of my life in that world I'd argue that your enthusiasm is misplaced. No offense intended, but you're involved in something that's a mile wide but only an inch deep. It's just hard to see it from the inside.
Allow me to push back as well. I know how people can have energy at a concert and the closer you get to the front the more energy the people around you have. Sure, there can be that in a church as well. But how about when nobody's there? Can you sense the difference in that case? While a non-believer would say it's all psychological, a believer senses that there are spaces that are more hallowed than others. I agree that the Orthodox way of building a sacred space contributes to this sense, but it's because of how the people are affected by the space. The charismatic "hallowed" space is different but same in the sense that it is the people that make the difference - and the closer you get to the front - the more the people are likely to believe.
If it is only emotion, then I'd agree with your sentiment that it is only an inch deep. My experience is, as far as I am able to tell, is quite different from that. I can feel it even when nobody is there. And that "feeling" is significantly different than an emotional feeling.
As an aside, I don't like hype. It seems when the Spirit is not moving then people want to make something happen. It can seem similar, but in the end, it's very shallow.
Well, the reason I'd disagree is that the "charismatic" buildings are almost inevitably multi-use venues. You can have a concert there as easily as a service, or a political lecture/rally, etc., etc. The feeling of God's presence is entirely based on what's going on, not on the edifice as such. At the Pentecostal Bible college I attended the main auditorium/hall was used for both chapel services and larger classes. The "feel" of the hall was definitely different between the two. They also used it for fund-raising rallies -- and these had yet a different feeling.
Yes, you're right about the multi use aspect of the spaces. I was talking specifically about a multi-day conference where that's the only thing going on for those days.
I understand, but I don't think that changes the underlying observation.
I'm just saying that any space can become a special place when people encounter God there. Consider the weight that someone who has known God in a special way can bring into a space - no matter where that space is.
I was hoping to see a comment from you where I could put my current thought so you could see it. For context I've begun reading The Catholic Imagination by Andrew Greeley, based on David Tracy's work and half the book about Protestants. From that book: All spaces are sacred so some spaces are more sacred than others.
I buy what Rod is selling because in my case (and I suspect your case) I think he is preaching to the choir. All places are sacred, down to the Walmart parking lot. Suffering and being aware of a need for Jesus hallows the ground everywhere.
Most of my hallowed ground is much like in nursing homes and hospitals.
Where I am pushed to be Catholic is not for myself the beautiful churches but for truth. The screen issue is a secondary but firm argument against alternatives for me. Just the other day I was in Mass and someone started scrolling through the daily readings on their phone, ugh, people aren't supposed to do that so I closed my eyes to refocus. Thankfully an exception.
As for my objection of where we disagree and where I would ask you to consider. Metaverse man is worse because he is wearing a ridiculous headset and is mediated by technology. Helps, thinking, writing, communicating can have an electronic mail aspect, but our talking with God himself while extra immersed has something really off about it. An example (Edit, an example of what works well enough) when I read Rod's blog I sometimes pray as I read here for the people who comment, (because) between me and God there is no electronics.
Protestants emphasize we don't need a mediator other than going directly to Jesus. Electronics getting too involved is a detraction from it, and I implore you to consider that new people can't easily feel God's presence when the electronics are creating out of body experiences.
I don't personally need a Cathedral but I need a way of thinking that values a Cathedral.
I can't yet say about the Eucharistic Adoration aspect, but I think that may be in part attention based too. I believe in the Eucharist but having an awareness of all spaces being sacred I am not expecting too much more. Maybe I will be surprised later?
Lastly, I hadn't thought of the garbage dumps in years and Rod should go there too as a writer and collector of spiritual experiences. Not because beautiful churches are bad but because it is yet another interesting and inspiring thing.
Adoration has never failed me. Even during periods of dryness, something.....an insight, a sin I have been burying, a person that needs prayer, peace, something always comes of that time. 25 years into my re-version and Jesus, present in Adoration, has been my "go-to", even when I can't seem to quiet my mind.
I believe you. I will keep that in mind.
If Metaverse Man is standing alone in Mott Auditorium with his VR headset, he doesn't have your experience. You made 1000-mile round trip pilgrimages to be incarnately present among thousands in worship; he can be bothered to flip the power switch.
Metaverse Man annoys because he is a condensed symbol of a desire for a bespoke 'Jesus and me' Christianity where he treats it as an personal optimization exercise. The proof of love for Christ, or anything really, is to be willing to under go some pains for the beloved. One doesn't sense that in his approach.
I was willing to give the guy some slack. After all, I don't know him. Reading just now about some actual church VR experiences, it does seem more like what you're suggesting. Even still, consider someone who puts a service on their big screen TV , turns up the worship, and praises God with all their heart. I like to sing, but my wife doesn't want me sing too loudly in church (it can be distracting). That's one aspect I personally would like.
My question is why someone would choose to regularly worship alone in his living room instead of in community e.g. Acts of the Apostles doesn't have everyone doing his own thing in his separate hovel.
Scripture tells us to gather together, even though doing so in their day could get you in real trouble. No argument there. The VR version does allow you to actually interact with people, and you can break up into small groups and pray for each other, so it's not entirely "separate".
But really, this is mostly for young men who are used to playing games in VR worlds. Hopefully, they won't only do VR church. Certainly, go ahead and encourage them to come to an actual church. But I'd hesitate to say what they are doing is wrong.
'They hold church in grass shacks, under trees, and even in garbage dumps. And God shows up.'
Sure, I agree with that. "Where two or three are gathered, I am with them". My parents have had Mass celebrated in their backyard a couple times.
That said, Catholics and Orthodox are going to insist that some spaces, particularly churches, are more sacred (meaning 'dedicated to particular use/removed from profane use' e.g. concerts, conferences, etc.) than other places. Old timey Catholic practice was to exorcise then bless things prior to sacred use. Also, Catholics/Orthodox believe that the Eucharistic species are the presence of Christ himself. So, that being secured in the church tabernacle alone makes the church different from anywhere else.
Certainly there are differences. But often charismatic churches will have pre-service prayer where they ask God to come, to prepare people's hearts, and to remove any hinderances that shouldn't be there. It's roughly similar.
That's a good practice. The beginning of every Catholic Mass, even post-Vatican II, has the same thing in the 'Confiteor' prayer (i.e. "I confess to Almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters...").
"Even more, I firmly believe that Mott Auditorium saved our nation."
If you're referring to the election of Dubya in 2000 I think you're utterly mistaken (like me; I voted for him, too). Al Gore should have had to respond to 9/11. I don't know how he would have done so, but Dubya screwed everything up with reprise of Woodrow Wilson's "make the world safe for democracy" in the form of "propagate democracy everywhere, by force if necessary," and to do so he jettisoned whatever genuine conservative (socially conservative) instincts or commitments he may have had. In effect, with his puppet-master Cheyney he put the worst sort of fake conservatives - just look at where the Cheyneys have gone - in charge of the GOP. And the reaction to all this produce "the historical moment" for Trump the New Republican.
W certainly had his shortcomings, but at the time, compared to where Gore would have steered us, I'll take W. Of course we can't play out history and then choose which one we want after we see where we'll end up. We have to trust God.
But just consider who might have been put on the Supreme court if Gore had won, and where we'd be now in that case. We could have ended up like Romania with a court that shuts down the elections to prevent a Trump from winning!
Good points.
All that is true. Again, elections are a chess game, not a be all, end all. Sometimes it is "who will do the least damage." Bush did horrid damage? But would Gore have been worse? Quite possibly.
We now look back at the Iraq war and see it as a big mistake, but at the time, it seemed the right thing to do. Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's at the time, we knew he wanted to have them, and we knew he was willing to invade other countries. The possibility of having a WMD set off in a major city after what happened on 911 was intolerable.
And yet, America has no real desire to control another people, nor did we know how to manage a country we had overthrown. We blindly hoped that the Iraqi's themselves would become like us wanting freedom and doing what it takes to have it. That was a huge mistake.
But that experience now tempers our ambitions to shape the world. It's one thing to make a big mistake. It's another thing not to learn from it.
And Gore? What would Gore have done with the "axis of evil"? Remember bin Laden thinking America was a paper tiger? Wouldn't Hilary have continued Obama's policies with Iran?
My thinking is that only God knows how this chess game will play out. And only He can make the moves that are needed. But we still have to do the best we can do with what we know at the time. Bush did what seemed right at the time, and I would have likely made the same mistakes.
Re: Compared to where Gore would have steered us, I'll take W.
You actually think Gore would have been worse than Bush on handling the 9-11 stuff? Gore was probably more left than you'd like on environmental issues, but otherwise he was pretty much the same sort of moderate liberal that Clinton was, though without the bimbo eruptions.
Tis true that Gore was more centrist like Clinton, and likely would not have invaded Iraq. But that would have left Saddam festering away, and I suppose Iraq would have eventually collapsed anyway, given Iran's support for the majority Shite there and Saddam not living forever. Syria just fell after all.
So was our invasion of Iraq a mistake in the long run? I don't know.
But I do know that Gore would have steered us to the Left on social issues, on judges, and the environment.
What do you think should be done even now with Iran and North Korea? The world is every bit of a mess as it was back then. We might have messed up with stabilizing Iraq after the invasion, but to me, we should have figured out how to do it. I've heard now that nukes are being put up for sale. If that's true, what do you suppose we should do about it?
There are more issues than just Iraq. Chess.
IMO the "screw up" was basing the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq on the occupations of Germany and Japan. The defeated in WW2 were shamed into submission (Germany with Nazi atrocities, Japan just by losing). The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are shameless. The only way we could have successfully occupied the two countries was to have immediately bought off the populace: oil profits in Iraq, opium purchases in Afghanistan. Instead we turned over the oil profits to the Iraqi government (thus failing to spread the wealth and investing the populace in peace and stability) and sprayed herbicides on the poppies in Afghanistan. That's why we failed.
Or to build on Colin Powell's "You break it you own it", not if it is already broken by its very nature.
Not just that, though that is true. Every foreign situation is framed in WW2 terms, when that is a mistake. Each is unique and can only be examined on its own terms. Use the lessons off history, but to think they are exact parallels, especially our preferred parallel which makes a good club with which to beat the heads off doubters, is a mistake.
I personally know a couple of Romanians who voted for Georgescu in the first round. They are neither TikTok users nor Russian dupes. They simply do not want their country used as a battleground for a NATO-Russian war.
Ah, yes, the judges. What are the Romanian processes for vetting and restraining them? Up here in Canada we know well the relevance of Juvenal’s cynical old question to the selection and operation of these sheepdogs (my apologies to the canine species!) of the progressive establishment: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Short of concrete evidence of actual rigging of the ballot boxes in Georgescu’s favour it’s hard to see how this intervention could be categorized as anything other than a judicial coup.
Reading this, I couldn’t help but remember the first part of Frank Galvin’s summation in “The Verdict”:
“You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true." And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time, we become dead... a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims... and we become victims. We become... we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs. We doubt our institutions. And we doubt the law.”
Alas, the second part of his summation doesn’t seem applicable in this case.
One of Newmans best films imo
Re: I’m just repeating to you what my friends and contacts there are telling me about all this
Are any of those people actually in a position to know? If not you're just repeasting rumors, the equivalent of the 9-11 trutherism. And if anyone thinks Russia would not gleefully meddle in its neighbors affairs I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.
"if anyone thinks Russia would not gleefully meddle in its neighbors affairs I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them"
That's fine, Jon, as long as you grant that we do exactly the same, which seems to be what is going on here. And we're supposed to be "the good guys." Never mind your bridge. I have some property in Pomona available....
Jon wouldn't believe it anyway unless he went to Romania and saw it for himself. Ron could somehow get quotes from a couple of dozen of the Romanians who came to his book signing about what was happening to their country and it wouldn't be enough for our Doubting Jon.
Er, um, I do believe the election cancellation news. I just reject the knee-jerk assumption that the US is behind it. When I was younger I rejected the Leftist notion that the US was behind everything bad in the world, and I reject the same unwarranted assumption on the Right. Foreign nations do not need us (or Russia either for that matter) to behave badly on their own prerogative.
Believe it or not, I agree that America was not behind the cancellation of the Romanian election. This is a Romanian operation. And not very wise. I can see a political firestorm in Romania shortly.
“the Leftist notion that the US was behind everything bad in the world, and I reject the same unwarranted assumption on the Right”
That’s CRAZY. We all know that AMERICA BAD
America is a good thing. But there are some very evil people here who either hold power or are desperately grabbing for it.
True everywhere. A city of saints does not exist
Better Doubting Jon than Gullible Dukeboy01.
I work in Pomona. Unless it is in Lincoln Park I wouldn't bite.
You do hopefully see a difference. Russian meddling results in Yushchenko being poisoned and having his face permanently destroyed. It also results in a rule by a policeman’s baton. American meddling results in nothing like that.
You have a very rosy view of American meddling.
America support some violent revolutions. We may have been right to do that, but many people were killed.
To be clear, I regard the canceling of elections to be a banana republic move. I know nothing about the Romanian constitution but I assume their Supreme Country has the delegated power to do this(?). Not sure why they would have such a power. However it seems more likely the current gang on power in Bucharest would be behind this, perhaps (speculation) because they fear being investigated for shady doings by a successor who is not on board with business as usual.
Hey, Jon: X, The New York Post, and the Daily Mail are all down now. Coincidence?
Well, could be a cyber attack I suppose.Not sure what your point is. Those have nothing whatsoever to do with Romania.
Meanwhile the news about Romania is being reported. This is pretty even-handed:
https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-politics-election-calin-georgescu-elena-lasconi-what-the-hell-is-going-on/
This is interesting:
“Acting on the intelligence, Iohannis declassified secret files that alleged Georgescu had unlawfully benefited from extensive electoral promotion during periods when campaigning was prohibited. The documents alleged his campaign had received foreign financial support, despite the fact he declared he’d spent nothing on it.”
No, they aren't.
The Rogan Episode with Mike Benz does a pretty good job explaining the blob and their rainbow revolutions/interference is overseas elections for “democracy.” It certainly fits with this.
Paul Gottfried wrote about early versions of this 20 years ago. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
Putin campaigned with Yanukovych and shared the stage with him. Obviously you will condemn this Russian meddling in Ukraine.
Democracy is when Yushchenko gets poisoned and has his face destroyed. The US opposing that is obviously bad and an example of inteference.
Democracy is also when Putin has Boris Nemtsov murdered so he can rule till death - and the US opposing that is outrageous interference.
No, those examples aren't democracy. Nor is cancelling an election because someone from another country was propagandizing. Are you related to Jay Nordlinger?
We all need to pray for the people of Eastern Europe. Such things have a tendency of developing into civil war. That’s the last thing the region (and the world) needs right now. The forces of chaos are in full swing.
It must be gratifying for Rod Dreher to have had such an overwhelming amount of support for his book and his ideas. From Romania to Italy to France and to America, more and more people know that the establishment is the enemy of their organic cultures. In Romania, the establishment denied the election of an anti-establishment conservative, Calin Georgescu, and turned their backs on Romanian democracy. One hopes a general strike is called and the Romanian economy ground to a halt. A few words from President-elect Donald Trump might be useful.
Let me compare Romanians fight against its decadent political and cultural establishment with what just recently happened in Ireland. Ireland's two winning parties in Ireland's recent elections are both culturally left-wing but pro-business, fossilized remnants of the Irish Civil Wars of a century ago. And this after Ireland had spasms of resistance to its political and cultural establishment after an African refugee stabbed three Irish girls to death a few months ago. Where is there a culturally conservative party in Ireland? Where is there a political party to defend the Irish people? Where is there any resistance to an evil establishment? It is hard for me to say because I have Irish blood but perhaps the Irish are a nation of cowards and conformists.
There isn’t a conservative party in Ireland. Why is a complicated question. Remember the Republic of Ireland is born out revolutionary violence that began a little over a century ago on Easter 1916. The left played a significant role in this . James Connelly was a socialist and a martyr of the struggle. That’s part of the national legacy. The War of Independence and the Civil War take place and Eamon DeValera winds up on top . Ireland consolidates as a kind of clerico Catholic state that was quite conservative yet not particularly ideological.Gradually this disintegrates and the parties that came out of the 20s drifted into modern neoliberalism. Remember that other than Catholicism, they had no conservative ballast. There was an eccentric character named Stan Gebler Davies who took a shot some years ago at launching a Conservative Party but that went nowhere. With Catholicism gone, most Irish wanted to be “ modern “. Don’t imagine that there is some mass constituency for anything that could be called conservativism. There isn’t.Ok I said this was complicated and it should be noticed that I haven’t mentioned the elephant in the room,Northern Ireland. Ireland is in a sense a product of an anti colonial struggle . This lead to it not automatically identifying with “ The West “ and being not unsympathetic to world wide anti colonial struggles. Ireland never joined NATO and was openly neutral. Many Irish never stopped viewing the UK as the enemy.When I was in Ireland during the Vietnam War there was quite a bit of anti Americanism. Then Northern Ireland “ cooked off”. Northern Catholics were definitely not apt to identify with conservativism which was the old Anglo Irish squirearchy and increasingly the Paisely lumpen and Orange orders. Instead they took inspiration from the American Civil Rights movement. Gradually the old Nationalists were replaced by the explicitly (moderate) leftist Social Democrat and Labour Party. With violence that old zombie the IRA came roaring back . This IRA was quite left wing. Both the Provos and the Officials claimed Marxism at certain points. Remember the IRA resurgence was initially defensive. That’s what gained them their cache. It’s well worth your time to watch the movie Bloody Sunday directed by Paul Greengrass because it dramatically illustrates this with the IRA coming out of the shadows.The new IRA spawned a series of left leaning political movements in both the North and South. The Workers Party, The Irish Republican Socialist Party and most importantly in the long run a revived Sinn Fein which has become the third largest party in the South and probably the biggest party in the North.To make a long complicated story as short as possible, the cultural and historical predicates for what an American might recognize as conservativism don’t exist in Ireland. And after centuries of poverty, oppression and forced immigration, people are rather attracted to being rich , complacent and well bourgeois and it’s rather understandable.At the same time a kind of radical chic ideology spawned by the troubles and fortified by the national revolutionary myth makes conservatism quite unattractive.
An excellent summary account; thank you!!
I appreciate that.
Thanks for your very interesting comments, John. As an aside, I am a great fan of The Clancy Brothers music group from the 60s and have a CD of their December 1966 tour. It is fascinating that the Clancy Brothers displayed so much contempt for the British yet Paddy and Thomas Clancy served in the British Navy in World War Two. Ireland certainly has a history unique to itself. But I would think that they're ready for a political party that defended Ireland's culture.
Baseline point, what is Ireland’s culture? The Irish don’t even speak their own language. Look , Poles speak Polish, Germans - German, etc. The Irish speak English. The Irish nationalists grasped this was a problem and made some effort to promote Irish but it was pretty much a lost cause. Oh sure they teach it in school and it actually is a living language in a few western villages but otherwise, forget it. Brendan Behan satirized the Gaelic revival quite humorously in The Hostage where an IRA commander whose father is a Church of Ireland Bishop, refuses to speak English in Dublin and has to have a translator even though, of course English is his native language.So you have a country that speaks a foreign language as it’s vernacular. Ireland has a great literary history. But most of its writers were of English descent. Yeats was a great writer who celebrated the Irish cause and traditional culture and was totally disconnected from and actually hostile to the Catholic culture of most Irish.What distinguished the Irish the most from the English was , they were Catholic. Without that there is no big difference. They are an English inculturated people who live over the Irish Sea from England and have a culture that is largely English derived.
It is not pleasant to admit, but you are largely correct. Irish culture has a strong English culture attached to it. In Massachusetts, the old Irish culture has conformed to the old Yankee Puritan culture. Massachusetts Irish politicians differ very little from the old Yankee liberals. Jack Kennedy was little different than Henry Cabot Lodge and Edward Markey is little different from William Weld and Charlie Baker.
West Britons, in other words (thems war fightin words in Irish society ca. 125 years ago)
Would be now but facts are stubborn things!
Thinking of "West Briton," I suddenly recall it being spat out as a curse by Miss Ivors at Gabriel Conroy in John Huston's film version of Joyce's "The Dead" (1987); and then my mind and memory were swept away to the film and that haunting ballad "The Lass of Aughrim." Funny how the memory works; the song scene is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1CP5Lz2iHE
I recall that an Irish member of the UK parliament cried out "Give Ireland back to the Irish!" and then a bencher yelled "And give Liverpool back to the English!"
Yes and someone once suggested that Glasgow and Belfast shift to each other’s locations.
Excellent. That's my understanding too.
I'd emphasise that Irish social conservatism had really no content other than Catholicism, which has now sharply declined.
The USA is a bit like Ireland in that social conservatism is heavily Christian. In the UK, social conservatism is pretty much disconnected from religion (rather like in Japan), and is tangled up with things like support for the monarchy, celebration of British history, patriotism, courtesy, and just a disconnected jumble of cultural things (more pubs than churches). There's a tendency for assertive Christianity to be seen as incompatible with social conservatism, as Catholicism is seen as unpatriotic, and Evangelicalism as weird, modern, American, etc.
Personally, I have sympathy with the social conservative temperament in both the UK and Japan. I mean that I like the monarchy, respect tradition, understand people not wanting mass immigration, and just get the thing about English people in some small town wanting a quiet life, and pubs with warm beer, cricket, and fish and chips. On the other hand, it's not really all that Christian, and at points is incompatible with Christianity. I wouldn't push this too far, but in both countries there's a case to be made that a Christian should push for demographic replacement by Christian foreigners.
I appreciate your comments. I think you got my points on Irish Catholic conservatism and your contrast to the English variant strikes me as correct.
Re: I mean that I like the monarchy, respect tradition, understand people not wanting mass immigration, and just get the thing about English people in some small town wanting a quiet life, and pubs with warm beer, cricket, and fish and chips.
I have a similar attitude (though would not want a monarchy in the US as that is quite alien to our tradition no matter how much voyeur stuff we do on the Merry House of Windsor.
Re: On the other hand, it's not really all that Christian, and at points is incompatible with Christianity.
I don't think it's possible to marry Christianity to any particular social or cultural ideology-- Christianity about something lot bigger than worldly things and the marriage only works if you water down the Christianity-- a lot.
Never underestimate the value of the 2nd Amendment. Since most of our "elites" over here have never actually been punched in the face, they fear unwashed hordes of Dirt People with their boomsticks getting all riled up if they go too far. It's why they get so freaked out about January 6, which was, in the main, a bunch of Boomers holding a parade through the Capital without a permit.
It's also why I'm not personally too upset with the street assassination of Brian Thompson, frankly. It is good for our elites to be reminded that they can get got the same as a West Baltimore drug dealer. It helps to focus their minds.
Back in the day Michael Kinsley liberals used to say that that the U.S. was the only country in the world (he meant that West, but this was pre Ta-Nehisi) without single-payer healthcare, and all of them tightly regulate gun ownership as well, blah blah blah, and all the boys and girls sagely nodded their heads. And now they're saying the same thing about the First Amendment. You know they want here what's going down in Britain. You know it.
“they fear unwashed hordes of Dirt People with their boomsticks getting all riled up if they go too far.”
Really? But they went too far multiple times. On abortion and the trans issue and the race issue they went further than any European country. So they obviously don’t fear them.
“Never underestimate the value of the 2nd Amendment”
Against the Army the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t mean much.
“It's why they get so freaked out about January 6”
No, they freaked out about January 6 because they wanted to tie Trump to it forever and so insure that he has no future in politics.
“It helps to focus their minds.”
And yet they have no fear of your threats. On abortion and the race issue and the trans issue they went as far as they wanted and all those cowards with guns didn’t do anything.
"Against the Army the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t mean much."
With wokery that might be true today, but up until at least 2000 it was widely known (polling consistently backed this up) that the U.S. military's personnel were pro-2nd Amendment (after all, they like their guns too, and they know they will retire) and would likely mutiny had they been employed in a concerted effort to disarm the populace.
Still is. That is the lion's share of recruitment.
And "woke indoctrination" has not worked within the ranks.
They also don't like the idea of government guns being turned on their hometowns, friends, families.
There are an estimated 75 million gun owners in the US with over 300 million guns. I think that is a great deal of something, unless the US is prepared to nuke cities indiscriminately. And maybe even then. Remember it was Yamamoto who said invading the US was impossible due to gun ownership. As to defeating the US Army, talk to the Afghans.
Or the Vietnamese. Or the Iraqis. The US Army is a very formidable instrument. But only when led by people who understand its strengths and limitations.
Some mouthy Pole has no idea.
You don't have to nuke cities. The sheer disruption from any sort of civil war these days would lead to mass starvation and disease.`
Wars always lead to mass starvation and disease, and in any case would affect both sides. If you think that makes armed conflict in the US impossible, you are simply wrong.
Do you think mass murder on such a scale, and out of lust for power, can ever be justified? God's mercy may be infinite but if anyone is in Hell, those who choose such a path surely are in its deeper pits.
If I read you correctly, you are saying that because a civil war in the US would have horrible consequences we must never let it happen and so we should accept anything our government throws at us - immiseration, jail time, execution - rather than revolt. Sorry, no. What you are doing is allowing the most evil to take over because you are too "good" to risk the consequences of fighting back. I am not in favor of war, civil or otherwise. But your attitude leads to hell on earth. I'll take my chances with the real thing when the day arrives.
You make the mistake of believing "The Army" would just form up and start shooting "dirt people."
Most of the ranks of The Army are made up of "dirt people." In fact, the deeper you get into the ranks of the combat arms, that's all you see. Also, the idea that they would just blindly obey such an order without serious disruption is fantasy. Add to that, the ranks of "dirt people" are made up of all kinds of formidable people, including veterans (including operators), cops etc. And in such a conflict, asymetrical warfare/insurgency, you don't charge into the teeth of the beast, you do not attack at the part with the armor and guns. You attack the fuel vehicles, ammo carriers, supply caravans. You make sure the population at large, who look the same and speak the same language, in that environment, the only land you control for sure is that which you stand on. And even that is not 100 percent.
Yeah, the "elite", the useless idiots, were poop scared. Because they saw they are not invincible or invulnerable. They knew it and the public at large knew it.
"People should not live in fear of their governments. Governments should live in fear of the people."
Why do you think AOC went on about hiding under her desk...when the riot never even came near her?
They are cowards who have never, most of them, been punched in the face.
Armies fight for whoever signs their paychecks. It's when the pay quits coming that they rebel.
Incorrect. They are not mindless robots only in service of their paychecks. You have never been a soldier. You do not know them. And once again, you know nothing of what you speak.
I'm going on the basis of history. And military personnel often have families dependent on those paychecks and benefits. They won't toss that away for the sake of some lowlifet troublemakers looting and vandalizing.
Yet, they have. They have also served without pay. You do not know your history. When we take that oatj, it is more than just words. US soldiers are not soulless mercenaries. What would you die for, Jon? A paycheck? Not me, not those who do uniformed service. You want a paycheck, there are many more jobs that will not ask you to put your life on the line.
I guess we are fortunate you didn't lead us at Normandy.
We're also fortunate the "Let Putin do as he will" folks were not in charge in the 1940s
Putin was not alive in the 4os. Your ww2 analogy is bullshit.
BBC World Radio coverage of this coup is ridiculous, calling him a “far right fringe” candidate and swallowing whole the Russia Russia Russia story.
Not surprising. I expect we’ll see exactly the same sort of treatment by the BBC’s Canadian counterpart as progressive establishment Rottweiler, the CBC, along with all our other major media except the National Post.
“swallowing whole the Russia Russia Russia story”
Ok, so maybe you will explain how a completely unknown individual has immediately 25,000 TikTok accounts supporting him?
For the record - I am against canceling the election. I think it will only make Georgescu more popular. But aren’t you the least bit curious where did those TikTok accounts come from?
So what? TikTok accounts don’t vote.
OK, so Thomas F Davis is not curious.
From a Politico article:
“Acting on the intelligence, Iohannis declassified secret files that alleged Georgescu had unlawfully benefited from extensive electoral promotion during periods when campaigning was prohibited. The documents alleged his campaign had received foreign financial support, despite the fact he declared he’d spent nothing on it.”
As I said I am against canceling the election. But maybe it is interesting if he violated the law by campaigning during so called “election silence”. And I think it is even more interesting if he had substantial foreign financial support. Still he won the first round and unless he visibly broke the law (I think the election silence thing is too small) there should have been a second round.
1) They are allegations, not proved facts. We have seen how intelligence reports are not facts cast in stone, only various levels of probabilities; sometimes they are false plants.
2) It is possible that 'received' means much more than transfer of funds into the Georgescu campaign bank accounts, it could well include expenditures not under his control. If that is grounds for canceling election results then why should we ever have elections at all?
3) Again, if you can prove 25,000 TikTok accounts can influence any election I might get curious, but until then I am extremely skeptical of any 'improper election influences' having any real effects.
Nothing to worry about! Instability and great power meddling in central Europe and the Balkans has never caused any problems before. Yeesh! Paging Gavrilo Princip . . .