The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, or New England?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
1280px-Overview_of_Oropesa_del_Mar_Spain-496x372

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Catalonia, in the southeastern corner of Spain, is in the news.[Catalonia Government Declares Overwhelming Vote for Independence, by Raphael Minder, NYT, Oct 6, 2017] I was there once, back in my salad days, on my way to a camping vacation down the coast at a sleepy little whitewashed village named Oropesa del Mar, now all built up with tower blocks and tourist hotels.

“Sleepy” was a pretty good descriptor for Spain itself in the mid-1960s, after 25 years of deep clerico-conservatism under the rule of Generalissimo Francisco Franco. We flew into Barcelona and stayed one day there. It was terrifically hot. There was not much traffic and the buildings all seemed about two hundred years old. People moved at a slow walking pace, except for the couple of hours around midday when they didn’t move at all.

Perhaps, I remarked to my companion, it might not be entirely coincidence that “Catalonia” differs by only one letter from “catatonia.”

Changing trains some way down the line we got stuck in a railroad waiting room on the wall of which was pasted an ancient fading poster headed Proclamación Real—”Royal Proclamation.” Spain was an on-again, off-again monarchy through the 19th and 20th centuries. Right now it’s “on”—present-day Spain is a monarchy. That’s only been the case since 1975, though. When I was there in 19 65, Spain was not a monarchy. It hadn’t been one since 1931.

So I, standing there in that lonesome railroad halt in 1965, was looking at a pasted-up Royal Proclamation at least 34 years old.

Rather than engage with the particular issue at hand, I shall make some general observations about nationalism, as in Spain, and sub-nationalism, as in Catatonia … sorry, Catalonia, and trans-nationalism.

The great classic Chinese novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms opens with a sentence that any literate Chinese person can quote to you: 話說天下大勢, 分久必合, 合久必分 — “It has been said of all under Heaven that what was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide.”

As well as being a fair summary of four thousand years of Chinese history, that’s not a bad guide to history at large. Nations come together and merge; empires form then disintegrate.

Yes, there are those big historical tides ebbing and flowing. But we can form preferences related to our own time and place. Mine are nationalist, with a seasoning of skepticism.

Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them.

It is of course the case that our co-ethnics may be crazy beasts — North Korea‘s a nation; Khmer Rouge Cambodia was a nation — while the foreigners in that distant city might be benign and wise, or at any rate not life-threatening. The Middle East under the Ottoman Empire was not an exemplar of peace and justice, but it doesn’t compare badly with today’s Middle East.

The great British national conservative Enoch Powell, who fifty years ago gave those eloquent warnings about the evils of mass immigration, once said that if Britain were at war he would fight for Britain, even if it was a communist dictatorship.

The Greek poet in Byron’s Don Juan, living under the Ottoman Turks, likewise looked back to the Greek tyrants of antiquity and sighed:

Our masters then

Were still, at least, our countrymen.

I’m basically on the same page with these nationalists, but with reservations. When the Vietnamese army put an end to the Khmer Rouge government by invading Cambodia, most Cambodians hailed them as liberators. Perhaps I would have, too; perhaps even Enoch Powell would have.

So there are qualifications to be made about nationalism, especially small-country nationalism or sub-nationalism. You’re not drawing from a big pool of political talent there. I have mixed occasionally with Scottish and Welsh nationalists; let’s just say I wasn’t impressed.

Sub-nationalism like Catalonia’s is also in contradiction to nationalism proper. Who’s the truer nationalist: the Spanish citizen who would fight and die for Spain, or the Catalan separatist who feels the same way about his province?

Here you’re in the zone of differences that can only finally be decided by force of arms.

You don’t have to recall horrors like Cambodia or North Korea to develop some caution about nationalism. Growing up in mid-20th-century England, we had an instance of passionate nationalism — or sub-nationalism, depending on your point of view — right on our doorstep. That was of course Ireland.

The Irish had been struggling for centuries to attain self-government. In 1921, after some revolutionary violence, they got autonomy; then in 1937, full independence.

Irish nationalism was a peculiar thing, though. The Irish had the nationalist impulse, all right: they wanted to be ruled by their own people, not by foreigners. Yet they also had strong trans-nationalist sentiments by virtue of being devout adherents of Roman Catholic Christianity — a trans-nationalist enterprise if ever there was one.

Having won their independence, the Irish signed on to every trans-national organization that came along. When I took my wife on a tour of the United Nations headquarters in 1987, our tour guide was an Irishman, and we heard a lot of Irish accents around the building.

Likewise with the European Union, on which the Irish are very keen. The sour joke in Britain thirty years ago was that having fought eight hundred years for their independence, the Irish had then sold it for a package of EU agricultural subsidies.

That’s not altogether fair. But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians [ How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland, Chicago Tribune, July 92006] the cab drivers are all Polish; and the current Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, is an open homosexual whose father was an Indian born in Bombay.

For this the heroes of 1916 faced the firing squads?

ORDER IT NOW

You may say that the right to national independence includes the right to national suicide. I suppose it does. Still, as a fan of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s observation that “Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities,” I lament the transformation of Ireland, the Land of Saints and Scholars, into an airport departure lounge — with the rest of Britain not far behind, indeed in some respects ahead.

“What was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide.” Hearing that now we Americans of course think of the secession talk that seems to be getting more and more common on the blogs, including very smart and sensible ones like the Audacious Epigone.

If Catalonia, why not California, or Texas, or New England?

All right; history has its ebbs and flows, to be sure, and to stand athwart them crying “Stop!” is most likely futile. As a conservative, though, I rather strongly favor leaving the big old nations as they are, absent some obvious and pressing need to break them up.

So without knowing much about Catalonia or its independence movement, I’ll register myself as guardedly skeptical, on general grounds. America for Americans; Spain for Spaniards; nationalism over trans-nationalism and sub-nationalism both.

Last week I wrote about the coming centenary of the Bolshevik coup d’état in Russia. At the New York Times they’re already starting to hang out the bunting.

The tension between nationalism and imperialism was a factor in Lenin’s revolution. Tsarist Russia was an empire; it included numerous non-Russian nationalities. What plan did the Bolsheviks have for them?

Irish historian Frank Armstrong had a thoughtful op-ed on this in Wednesday’s Irish Times, contrasting the Bolshevik coup of 1917 with the Easter Rising in Ireland the previous year.[ Men of 1916 had much in common with Bolsheviks | But October Revolution and Easter Rising had radically diverging ideologies, October 5, 2017] . He points out the tension among Bolsheviks, notably Stalin, between, on the one hand, the orthodox Marxist line that “the proletariat has no homeland” and nationalism is a reactionary bourgeois impulse, and on the other hand, admiration for revolutionary violence like that practiced by the Irish rebels.

Armstrong doesn’t go anywhere much with his op-ed, but it’s a useful reminder that nationalists and trans-nationalists can find themselves thinking the same thoughts.

Here’s where I renew my call for a worldwide alliance of nationalists along the lines of the old Comintern, the Communist International.

We can call this alliance the Natintern, the Nationalist International. I’m still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable anthem, to be called of course The Nationale.

2010-12-24dl[1] John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: Catalonia, Diversity, Spain 
Hide 193 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Randal says:

    A good discussion of a complex topic. Touches on conservatism versus radicalism as well, which I think affects whether one is likely to support sub-nationalism against an established nation, even one’s own.

    Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and “blood and soil” nationalism versus “citizenist” (to use I think Sailer’s term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be “racist”.

    I noted recently that there is an interesting contrast between the British government’s concession, in the case of Scotland, to the sub-nation of the inherent right to unilateral independence based merely on a majority of the sub-nation’s population supporting it, and Spain’s adherence to the opposite (and much more widespread) principle that secession is a matter for the nation as a whole, or simply treasonous sedition.

    Someone has pointed to Quebec as another case where the point was conceded to the popular will of the sub-nation, and the whole process of the British withdrawal from colonial empire could be viewed as being the same (although there was a deal of US coercion and implicit threats of secessionist violence involved, along with the basic fact that thanks to WW1 & WW2 the British elites knew they lacked the strength to hold onto their colonies).

    Clearly the constitutional positions of Scotland and of Catalonia are very different, but I think the governments of both Spain and Britain could have found ways to rationalise making the opposite choice to the one they took, if they had wanted to. Perhaps it comes down to the British government being confident they would win a referendum, but the Spanish government fearing they would not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and “blood and soil” nationalism versus “citizenist” (to use I think Sailer’s term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be “racist”.
     
    Well....a little correction if I may.

    Ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism is definitely much stronger in self-sacrifice and will to fight.
    Definitely.
    But, in this case, I am not quite sure that Catalan seccseionists aren't actually exactly that.
    I have a feeling that underneath that "citizenist' veneer there is that "ethnic and blood and soil" element.
    If...if that is the case you actually, secession wise, have a perfect combination: ethnic solidarity and open mind; open mind technically, technologically and, of course, tactically.

    You probably visit ARRSE.
    Take a look as some of posts by Brits (and ex-military most likely) who live there.Those hint, strongly, at "ethnic element" in this move.

    I mean, really, at the end of the day, why this can't be as Slovakia and Czech Republic?
    Or Baltic states?
    Or Macedonia (before Kosovo, that is....)?

    If it goes shooting it could be Slovenia. Short and effective for secession.
    Of course, from there it can go through Croatia into, even, Bosnia. Uglier and much uglier.
    I doubt it can go Chechnya or Kosovo. Just not the environment, IMHO.

    I see the problem here as deeply emotional and irrational element (by secessionists) versus modern, soft, civilized logic of Western world (by EU, NATO, US).

    The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic aside.
    If....if.....that's that "real" nationalism.

    We, outsiders, don't know that.
    Only Catalans do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/if-catalonia-why-not-california-texas-or-new-england/#comment-2034925
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. “If Catalonia, why not California, Texas, or New England?” Don’t you know what happened to the South’s attempt to secede! Do some homework, writer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    How about reading the article.
    , @Colleen Pater
    I'll Bet you ten thousand dollars derb knows more about the war of northern aggression than you do my an order of magnitude
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. The Scalpel says: • Website

    It seems to me you are countering the “What was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide,” philosophy with one of “This far but no farther.” You even recognize that your point of view cannot prevail but prefer it anyway. Well here’s to you Don Quixote! May separaratism never come to La Mancha.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Death is the inevitable end of any civilization. If not now, then when the sun gives way.

    There is no escape.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.

    But it wasn’t always like this. I haven’t seen any data on this, but the number of states or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the rise of the great gunpowder empires.

    And there’s no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    And there’s no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states.
     
    But is there any reason to expect it necessarily to continue, given that it appears to be an aggregate function of a number of different processes, some of which are no longer in force, some of which are countervailing and might well become more dominant in future?

    It certainly isn't just a function of the world becoming more peaceful and therefore smaller states being more viable - after all the process you describe began before the two world wars. The breakup of the big continental European empires is a different process from the later breakup of the colonial overseas empires, which again is a different process from the collapse of the Soviet empire or of Yugoslavia. They all have in common that they represent the loss of central authority over sub-nations, but they all result from different causes.

    Then you have the much vaunted general loss of real sovereignty in the modern globalised world. Many of the newly "independent" entities probably have less freedom of action than many vassals of the Holy Roman Empire. And you have the rise of the EU. How genuinely sovereign will the constituent nations be as the EU develops further towards a United States of Europe?

    For all the effort expended, there are few real examples of the long established nations of Europe fragmenting other than as the result of military defeat. Scotland, Wales, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Lombardy, etc, are all still part of the larger states of which they are sub-nations.
    , @Sean
    Enoch Powell said the European community was the economic wing of a military alliance (Nato).A couple of countries (Greece for one) were told they could not join the EC unless they were in Nato.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?
     
    Oooooh, did someone screech a boogeyman term?

    Who cares? Let it fragment. Reduce the size of the state -- always a good thing. The higher the ratio of citizens to wannabe rulers, the better.
    , @Pat Boyle
    Some things expand - others decline. For example the total number of languages is dropping quickly I'm told. Every now and then there will be a media story about some old tribesman who dies and with him some language. The tone is always "Og was the last person on earth to speak (some obscure language)". When I read that I always wonder if he was the last speaker- who was he conversing with? It seems to me that a language is truly dead when the second to last speaker dies.

    But if one of the root causes for nationalism and splitting off from the old country is language, with fewer languages shouldn't we have less nationalism?

    There is also the 700 channel phenomenon. I have 700 TV channels (I think). The people who purport to understand such things tell us that newscasters are killing off regional dialects. Surely if we all speak the same more or less same language in more or less the same way, that will lessen the pressures to split off and form your own country. No?

    Chinese shopping malls I see on the web look a lot like the malls in California. South Korea might give up the Korean language and adopt Chinese or Japanese. But they could adopt English. If they wanted to become the 51st state that would help.
    , @jeppo
    As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially).

    The US could (and maybe should) break up into 50 different nation-states, while the entity known as the "United States" could evolve from a unitary nation into a transnational organization, similar to the evolution of the European Union except in reverse.

    Meanwhile the EU could easily grow into 50 or more states, the former Soviet Union another 50, India a couple dozen, Africa an unknowable number etc. But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.

    So in any widespread international fragmentation scenario, China probably wins. And that's OK, as long as Europeans/whites are allowed to maintain sovereignty over at least parts of Europe and North America.

    On the other hand, if open-borders Spain and other suicidal Western countries (including the US and Russia) are allowed to survive in their present form, then they are all demographically doomed as white-majority nations.
    , @Eric Novak
    The unstoppable March of liberalism has just encountered the unstoppable march of Islam. The pussyhatters versus the jihadists-which do you think has the advantage?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Catalonia, in the southeastern corner of Spain,

    It’s in the northeastern corner of Spain, actually.

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    It’s in the northeastern corner of Spain, actually.
     
    In that case, which corner is the Basque country around Bilbao and San Sebastian? Maybe that is not a corner at all. Spain seems to have 2 north east corners, but you might want to call the Barcelona corner the south east corner as it sits on the Mediterranean facing of the Iberian peninsula, rather than the Atlantic coast or Bay of Biscay.

    In any case, if you really want to nit pick, Barcelona is below the corner formed by the Mediterranean and the French frontier and faces towards the Balearics.

    And are Almeria and Gibraltar and Huelva located at corners, and what are they called?

    Spain is actually shaped like the tilted head of a bull, with the two horns extending over Portugal and below France, so it has a lots of angles and corners and is not as square or rhomboidal as one might think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Randal says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.

    But it wasn't always like this. I haven't seen any data on this, but the number of states or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the rise of the great gunpowder empires.

    And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

    And there’s no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states.

    But is there any reason to expect it necessarily to continue, given that it appears to be an aggregate function of a number of different processes, some of which are no longer in force, some of which are countervailing and might well become more dominant in future?

    It certainly isn’t just a function of the world becoming more peaceful and therefore smaller states being more viable – after all the process you describe began before the two world wars. The breakup of the big continental European empires is a different process from the later breakup of the colonial overseas empires, which again is a different process from the collapse of the Soviet empire or of Yugoslavia. They all have in common that they represent the loss of central authority over sub-nations, but they all result from different causes.

    Then you have the much vaunted general loss of real sovereignty in the modern globalised world. Many of the newly “independent” entities probably have less freedom of action than many vassals of the Holy Roman Empire. And you have the rise of the EU. How genuinely sovereign will the constituent nations be as the EU develops further towards a United States of Europe?

    For all the effort expended, there are few real examples of the long established nations of Europe fragmenting other than as the result of military defeat. Scotland, Wales, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Lombardy, etc, are all still part of the larger states of which they are sub-nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @c matt
    Well, it does seem to be a natural cycle of civilizations. The only thing that I would expect to continue is the cycle (uniting, dividing, uniting, ad finitis). Seems the cycle follows the financial fortunes - nation has financial success, expands to empire, over-extends, collapses back to nation. The difficulty is determining the exact demarcation between nation and empire, and if the collapse not only removes the empiric fat, but takes a bit of the national meat and bone with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Sean says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.

    But it wasn't always like this. I haven't seen any data on this, but the number of states or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the rise of the great gunpowder empires.

    And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

    Enoch Powell said the European community was the economic wing of a military alliance (Nato).A couple of countries (Greece for one) were told they could not join the EC unless they were in Nato.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Anatoly Karlin
    I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.

    But it wasn't always like this. I haven't seen any data on this, but the number of states or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the rise of the great gunpowder empires.

    And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

    As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

    Oooooh, did someone screech a boogeyman term?

    Who cares? Let it fragment. Reduce the size of the state — always a good thing. The higher the ratio of citizens to wannabe rulers, the better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. — Yep, northeast it be, at least, last time I traveled there with wife, visiting Barcelona, while staying in Tarragona. One of the very few such trips we have taken — by train, bus, and, for the next night’s stay, the prayer “Ave Maria”! Beautiful, comfortable — in Tarragona, the strolls across the plaza, the corridor from coast to town, a wonder to behold, the gentle, loving humanity on display.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Sean says:

    Catalonian like Scottish nationalism is largely motivated by resentment by region that perceives itself as being used by a milch cow. Ireland was more authentically nationalist. Powell said the British state was always keen to divest itself of Ireland , but originally wanted the fig leaf of home rule. According to Paul Johnson in the Offshore Islanders, Ireland was a net drain of Britain (that might also have been true of the Empire be the begining of the 20th century. Arthur Balfour was right their could be no halfway house.

    Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them.

    People who are impoverished proclaim their allegiance to their community, because they are looking for help. Hence nationalism and especially religion.

    . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-replace-religion-by-2041-a-clarification_b_3695658.html
    Research has shown that religion declines not just with rising national wealth but with all plausible measures of the quality of life, including length of life, decline of infectious diseases, education, the rise of the welfare state, and more equal distribution of income. Clearly there is less of a market for religion in societies where ordinary people feel secure in their daily lives. In the most developed countries, such as Japan and Sweden, the quality of life is so good that the majority is already secular.

    Religion in an affluent society has not a snowball’s chance in hell . When it was the poorest country in Europe, Scotland was a byword for religious fanaticism. A crypto-clerical Irish state had economic growth that was the poorest in western Europe and possibly all Europe. But once hyper-capitalism transformed Ireland, it became like everywhere else–only worse. They don’t need the Church now–or nationalism. With war you would see nationalism. It is not nationalism that produces war but more the other way about. Germany got tired of great powers marching across it. Cambodia and North Korea too. For a resurgence of worldwide nationalism, a global war more true in the Clausewitz sense (ie unlimited) than anything imaginable would be needed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yeah
    I wouldn't write-off religion so easily. History has never been a linear process; times of affluence and want, times of security and strife, have all come and gone repeatedly, but religion has stayed on. Religion is a multi-faceted thing, answering to different peoples' different and inner-most needs. Yes, it is massively on the retreat in the west, but so it has in other historical periods. Expect it to bounce back - for better or worse is a different topic. In a way the most anti-religion people - communists, identity warriors, empiricists, and others, have tended to believe so absolutely in their own viewpoints that such belief is tantamount to the blind belief of traditional religions. Real atheism to me is the ability to suspend judgment and belief except when the evidence is strong enough to knock one down. To trade one set of dogmas with another does not constitute movement.

    Nor would I write-off nationalism so easily. Some variety of it is inherent in all social animals, whether it is allegiance to the pack, or to the tribe, or to the city, or to one's group, or to some other grouping. A new kind of nationalism is very much alive and thriving today: the transnationalism of the globalists and the elites. They see themselves as citizens of the world and the world as their oyster. The counter-reaction to that is already setting of revivals of various kinds of nationalisms of the traditional kind, sub-nationalisms of the tribal sort, and group mentalities of all kinds. War or no war, nationalism in various forms and mutations will endure if we go by human history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. “Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them.”

    I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL.

    I’m currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.
     
    You could get gored by a Texas longhorn instead.
    , @Miro23

    I’m currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.
     
    You wouldn't win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:

    Tenth Amendment

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
     

    So go back to the original idea, and mostly RAISE TAXES LOCALLY AND SPEND THEM LOCALLY. Combine this with the removal of the Washington/FED right to create credit and the removal of most Presidential powers and that's the end of Washington.

    And BTW you could also change the name of the "United States" to the "Confederation of American States" or "American Confederation" in recognition of the fact that states don' t have to be united, but could still respect each other's decisions and differences of opinion.

    Let Texas be Texas and California be California.

    It's also a useful way to stop foreign military adventures, since local voters would have to discuss the issue beforehand, budget for the expense and raise a special tax.

    , @Grandpa Charlie

    "I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL." -- WorkingClass
     
    Hear ye! Especially when globalism is of the corporatist variety -- and is there any other now in 2017? Small nations generally don't stand a chance ... nor do the large nations ... unless their politic is a functional democracy -- actually ruled for and by an educated and aware electorate. In the case of small nations, they are like the states of the USA when the states compete for which can give more to huge corporations in hopes of the corporations relocating and bringing capital and jobs to Nebraska, Georgia, Texas, etc. ... and the winner is ... Global Capital, Inc..

    In the case of large nations ... go ask Donald Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Pat Boyle says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.

    But it wasn't always like this. I haven't seen any data on this, but the number of states or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the rise of the great gunpowder empires.

    And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

    Some things expand – others decline. For example the total number of languages is dropping quickly I’m told. Every now and then there will be a media story about some old tribesman who dies and with him some language. The tone is always “Og was the last person on earth to speak (some obscure language)”. When I read that I always wonder if he was the last speaker- who was he conversing with? It seems to me that a language is truly dead when the second to last speaker dies.

    But if one of the root causes for nationalism and splitting off from the old country is language, with fewer languages shouldn’t we have less nationalism?

    There is also the 700 channel phenomenon. I have 700 TV channels (I think). The people who purport to understand such things tell us that newscasters are killing off regional dialects. Surely if we all speak the same more or less same language in more or less the same way, that will lessen the pressures to split off and form your own country. No?

    Chinese shopping malls I see on the web look a lot like the malls in California. South Korea might give up the Korean language and adopt Chinese or Japanese. But they could adopt English. If they wanted to become the 51st state that would help.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. jeppo says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.

    But it wasn't always like this. I haven't seen any data on this, but the number of states or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the rise of the great gunpowder empires.

    And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

    As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially).

    The US could (and maybe should) break up into 50 different nation-states, while the entity known as the “United States” could evolve from a unitary nation into a transnational organization, similar to the evolution of the European Union except in reverse.

    Meanwhile the EU could easily grow into 50 or more states, the former Soviet Union another 50, India a couple dozen, Africa an unknowable number etc. But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.

    So in any widespread international fragmentation scenario, China probably wins. And that’s OK, as long as Europeans/whites are allowed to maintain sovereignty over at least parts of Europe and North America.

    On the other hand, if open-borders Spain and other suicidal Western countries (including the US and Russia) are allowed to survive in their present form, then they are all demographically doomed as white-majority nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cato

    But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.
     
    Yes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that "homogeneous" Han core?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. peterAUS says:
    @Randal
    A good discussion of a complex topic. Touches on conservatism versus radicalism as well, which I think affects whether one is likely to support sub-nationalism against an established nation, even one's own.

    Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism versus "citizenist" (to use I think Sailer's term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be "racist".

    I noted recently that there is an interesting contrast between the British government's concession, in the case of Scotland, to the sub-nation of the inherent right to unilateral independence based merely on a majority of the sub-nation's population supporting it, and Spain's adherence to the opposite (and much more widespread) principle that secession is a matter for the nation as a whole, or simply treasonous sedition.

    Someone has pointed to Quebec as another case where the point was conceded to the popular will of the sub-nation, and the whole process of the British withdrawal from colonial empire could be viewed as being the same (although there was a deal of US coercion and implicit threats of secessionist violence involved, along with the basic fact that thanks to WW1 & WW2 the British elites knew they lacked the strength to hold onto their colonies).

    Clearly the constitutional positions of Scotland and of Catalonia are very different, but I think the governments of both Spain and Britain could have found ways to rationalise making the opposite choice to the one they took, if they had wanted to. Perhaps it comes down to the British government being confident they would win a referendum, but the Spanish government fearing they would not.

    Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and “blood and soil” nationalism versus “citizenist” (to use I think Sailer’s term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be “racist”.

    Well….a little correction if I may.

    Ethnic and “blood and soil” nationalism is definitely much stronger in self-sacrifice and will to fight.
    Definitely.
    But, in this case, I am not quite sure that Catalan seccseionists aren’t actually exactly that.
    I have a feeling that underneath that “citizenist’ veneer there is that “ethnic and blood and soil” element.
    If…if that is the case you actually, secession wise, have a perfect combination: ethnic solidarity and open mind; open mind technically, technologically and, of course, tactically.

    You probably visit ARRSE.
    Take a look as some of posts by Brits (and ex-military most likely) who live there.Those hint, strongly, at “ethnic element” in this move.

    I mean, really, at the end of the day, why this can’t be as Slovakia and Czech Republic?
    Or Baltic states?
    Or Macedonia (before Kosovo, that is….)?

    If it goes shooting it could be Slovenia. Short and effective for secession.
    Of course, from there it can go through Croatia into, even, Bosnia. Uglier and much uglier.
    I doubt it can go Chechnya or Kosovo. Just not the environment, IMHO.

    I see the problem here as deeply emotional and irrational element (by secessionists) versus modern, soft, civilized logic of Western world (by EU, NATO, US).

    The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic aside.
    If….if…..that’s that “real” nationalism.

    We, outsiders, don’t know that.
    Only Catalans do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I agree that there are certainly strong ethno-centric elements to the nationalism in Catalonia, as presumably there always are in nationalist movements of any size. My point is really that the movement itself is unable to mobilise those sentiments effectively - among the most powerful human motivating factors around, which is exactly why globalists place such a big emphasis on delegitimising their expression, criminalising and silencing them - probably because they are hobbled by their own leftist internationalist political philosophy (see the political origins of the main Catalan separatist parties).

    The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic aside.
    If….if…..that’s that “real” nationalism.

    We, outsiders, don’t know that.
    Only Catalans do.
     
    Yes, we can't know it for certain. But we can try to assess it from the available indicators, and my assessment fwiw is that that is not going to happen in the Catalan case, for various reasons.

    Only a fool or a liar would claim certainty on such an issue, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. I don’t see any good reason why Texas should not have independence if the people who live there want it. It is bigger than many independent nations like Lithuania or Moldovia that were once parts of the USSR.

    If even tiny places like St. Kitts and Nevis can be independent nations, why shouldn’t constituent United States disunite if they want to, or form new groups of United States? The constituent states of the US at present time are growing so that they all look the same, so I would like to see more diversity of lifestyles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    So long as the people there express a strong preference for secession on a sustained basis. Something like a 2/3 or 3/4 vote in two elections, two or three years apart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @WorkingClass
    "Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them."

    I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL.

    I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades.

    I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.

    You could get gored by a Texas longhorn instead.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Truth says:

    That’s not altogether fair. But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians

    Atila, you’re being paged!

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    That's why I left the RCC. If Caucasians accept black/Asian priests-popes, then all this talk about saving the West is useless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Truth says:

    If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, or New England?

    Don’t quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Don’t quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.
     
    On the other hand, if a defined population holds a referendum and votes by, say 3/4 majority to separate the political bonds that bind, why not? Is the Constitution a suicide pact? Is it forever and ever, no matter what?
    , @MBlanc46
    Perhaps it’s time for another one, if we can’t separate peacefully.
    , @Jake
    And we are in this position because the wrong side won. Mr. Lincoln's war and anti-secession party made Negroes the nation's sacred cows.

    If that is not undone, the America that survives will be a totalitarian hellhole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Truth

    If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, or New England?
     
    Don't quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.

    Don’t quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.

    On the other hand, if a defined population holds a referendum and votes by, say 3/4 majority to separate the political bonds that bind, why not? Is the Constitution a suicide pact? Is it forever and ever, no matter what?

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Defending the Constitution" during the American Civil War almost turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.
    , @Truth
    I believe that congress has to ratify any state leaving the union, but I could be wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. North-eastern corner of Spain, John, not south-eastern.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. “Mine are nationalist, with a seasoning of skepticism.”

    Derbyshire, How do your Chinese wife and offspring square with this statement?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. turtle says:

    >If Catalonia, Why Not California

    Sounds good to me.

    CA license plate I saw:
    SEA SEED

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Don’t quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.
     
    On the other hand, if a defined population holds a referendum and votes by, say 3/4 majority to separate the political bonds that bind, why not? Is the Constitution a suicide pact? Is it forever and ever, no matter what?

    “Defending the Constitution” during the American Civil War almost turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    “Defending the Constitution” during the American Civil War almost turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.
     
    Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades. Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. There are quite a few Americans now whom one could call Neo-Confederates. They argue for what they claim was the right and rightness of the historic Southern secession. Some speak of doing it again.

    I wonder what Derb would say to them?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-07/after-losing-millions-nigerian-scammers-bankrupt-boris-becker-liquidating-his-assets

    When will white people wise up about Negroes? But oh… that Magic Negro myth.

    It seems intelligence is useless when it is earnest and trusting of the Other.

    A trusting good-willed smart person will lose to a devious lowlife scumbag.

    The kraut trusted dindus and hindus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Hibernian says:

    “…— with the rest of Britain not far behind…”

    Ireland was English ruled for centuries, and part of the United Kingdom for about a century and a quarter (Six counties still are.), but it was never part of Britain. Hibernia and Brittania are two separate islands, a fact of geography apart fron politics, culture, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes, Derbyshire was a little lax using the term "Britain", when he should have written: "...with the rest of the British Isles not far behind..."
    , @Johann
    It is interesting to note that when Ireland finally won its independence in 1921 there was the Irish civil War which caused more brutality and slaughter than the war against the Brits. The Irish were vicious to the Irish on the other side of the civil war( similar to Americans during their Civil War although the Americans surpassed in the number of casualties of the enemy). There is a great scene in the film Michael Collins which had Liam Neeson play Collins where Alan Rickman portraying DeValera leader of the hard core IRA giving the famous "wading through rivers of Irish blood" speech. Yet after centuries of bloodcurdling warfare the Irish gave it all up for a few agricultural subsidies from the EU.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Miro23 says:
    @WorkingClass
    "Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them."

    I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL.

    I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades.

    I’m currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.

    You wouldn’t win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:

    Tenth Amendment

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

    So go back to the original idea, and mostly RAISE TAXES LOCALLY AND SPEND THEM LOCALLY. Combine this with the removal of the Washington/FED right to create credit and the removal of most Presidential powers and that’s the end of Washington.

    And BTW you could also change the name of the “United States” to the “Confederation of American States” or “American Confederation” in recognition of the fact that states don’ t have to be united, but could still respect each other’s decisions and differences of opinion.

    Let Texas be Texas and California be California.

    It’s also a useful way to stop foreign military adventures, since local voters would have to discuss the issue beforehand, budget for the expense and raise a special tax.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    As Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out (I believe it was in dissenting opinion in Gozales v. Raich), the SCOTUS with their radical judicial activism (from both the 'liberal' and the 'conservative' sides if the Court) have effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

    I agree with Thomas on that score, but that doesn't mean that I agree with those who find merit in the Confederacy's claim that the Tenth Amendment justified formation of the CSA and the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Confederate States Army, thus beginning the Civil War.

    If the Tenth Amendment were intended to nullify Article I, Section 10, then it needed to spell it out within the Amendment.

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ...

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    --- U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 10
     
    Sure, there are arguments to the contrary, but this approach is by far the most practical and truly conservative approach. The solution to the problem is difficult but plain enough. The people need to make clear to themselves and to their representatives in Congress that they do not want to see Congress surrendering its powers under the Constitution, whether that be to the Executive or to the Judiciary; and, the Congress then needs to rein in the activism of the SCOTUS, exercising their powers as given in Art. III, Sect. 2:

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. -- U.S. Const.Art. III, Section 2
     
    This approach to the necessary reforms is hoping for a lot from the American people, and it will be a long and difficult pull to effect it, but any other course will be either more difficult or will entail disaster. Many Americans have given up on reform within the Constitution, and have given up on the Constitution, and thus they would gladly court disaster today, thinking that we already have disaster ... but what is the way out if not by way of the Constitution?
    , @MBlanc46
    There’s at least as good a chance of disaggregation as there is of returning to federalism. I’d say it’s a considerably better chance. The globalists/multiculturalists in the blue regions (blue islands in a sea of red) will never consent to federalism. They might not be able to prevent other regions from breaking away.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Superb.
    , @Carroll Price

    You wouldn’t win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:
     
    If States Rights are respected, as they should be, and should have been, there would be, and would not have been any desire or reason for separation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Question.

    The race problem in America. Was it slavery or race?

    Imagine the following thought-experiment.

    300 yrs ago, suppose the colonists brought over 300,000 white or Asian slaves and 300,000 free black Africans.

    Suppose, at some time, the white or Asian slaves were freed whereas blacks were never under slavery.

    Today, which group would be causing the most problems? White or Asian descendants of slaves or black descendants of free blacks?

    I think blacks would still be causing the most problem.

    Genocide is worse than slavery, and it’s been said pre-American Indians got ‘genocided’. But they cause far less problems than blacks(and despite their great poverty).

    Blacks were bound to cause more problems because of biological factors. They are more muscular, more aggressive, and less reflective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    I would have two answers to this.

    First, that slavery is mostly a rhetorical tool in the ongoing Jewish/ SJW race war against Anglo Americans (of course ignoring the Jewish involvement). The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can't see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work.

    There was a recent comment on Unz from someone running three fast food jobs with hopelessly long, tightly controlled hours and lousy conditions. This work allowed him to support his family in a minimal way. You could argue that he was not a slave and was "free", but in what real sense is he any different from a slave. Same as Mexican illegals picking fruit. They probably work as hard as black slaves did for a minimum of food and shelter.

    Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities. But it's still a mean. People like Carson and Obama can be way above the national average on intelligence and good luck to them.

    A positive idea, is that different average ability levels aren't used to identify superior or inferior races - but rather to see individuals co-operatively contributing at their own particular level to a project (e.g. family or workplace). Some are at a higher level, and some at a lower level, but that's true of any organization, and doesn't stop people co-operating with a fair (not equal) share out of the rewards.

    But it isn't going to happen in a divisive SJW environment where the media and education constantly push a racial narrative, and it's not going to happen with mass immigration that overwhelms any efforts at integration.

    And, of course, it's all much easier with one race, one country, which is more or less how the world developed naturally over millennia.

    However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents - pushing forward as an organized racial block to appropriate power for Jewish racial advantage - even to the extent of expending $ trillions of US resources for the benefit of Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Cato says:
    @jeppo
    As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially).

    The US could (and maybe should) break up into 50 different nation-states, while the entity known as the "United States" could evolve from a unitary nation into a transnational organization, similar to the evolution of the European Union except in reverse.

    Meanwhile the EU could easily grow into 50 or more states, the former Soviet Union another 50, India a couple dozen, Africa an unknowable number etc. But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.

    So in any widespread international fragmentation scenario, China probably wins. And that's OK, as long as Europeans/whites are allowed to maintain sovereignty over at least parts of Europe and North America.

    On the other hand, if open-borders Spain and other suicidal Western countries (including the US and Russia) are allowed to survive in their present form, then they are all demographically doomed as white-majority nations.

    But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.

    Yes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that “homogeneous” Han core?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jeppo
    Yes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that “homogeneous” Han core?

    There are seven major subgroups of spoken Chinese. Of those Mandarin is by far the largest, with about 950 million first language speakers, or 70% of China's total population. So even if China was reduced to its Mandarin core it would still be a massive nation.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Anon
    "Defending the Constitution" during the American Civil War almost turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.

    “Defending the Constitution” during the American Civil War almost turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.

    Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades. Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades."

    In all likelihood, southern plantation owners would have kept their slaves for decades. Exactly why the moral scourge required eradication.

    "Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    Regarding Mr. Derbyshire's inquire "If Catalonia, why not California, or Texas, or New England?", there is a simple response--American secession is illegal.

    Regarding Mr. Derbyshire who says "Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them", well, Americans are mutts. We always have been and always will be. We intermixed racially and ethically. As a NATION, we share a common language, customs, and ways of life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Is America a nation?

    It is a country, but to call it a nation seems a bit too far.

    Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.

    Nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Is America a nation?"

    Absolutely.

    "Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common."

    Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.
    , @Carroll Price
    They have Federal Reserve Notes in common. That's about all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Truth says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Don’t quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.
     
    On the other hand, if a defined population holds a referendum and votes by, say 3/4 majority to separate the political bonds that bind, why not? Is the Constitution a suicide pact? Is it forever and ever, no matter what?

    I believe that congress has to ratify any state leaving the union, but I could be wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @WorkingClass
    "Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them."

    I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL.

    I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades.

    “I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL.” — WorkingClass

    Hear ye! Especially when globalism is of the corporatist variety — and is there any other now in 2017? Small nations generally don’t stand a chance … nor do the large nations … unless their politic is a functional democracy — actually ruled for and by an educated and aware electorate. In the case of small nations, they are like the states of the USA when the states compete for which can give more to huge corporations in hopes of the corporations relocating and bringing capital and jobs to Nebraska, Georgia, Texas, etc. … and the winner is … Global Capital, Inc..

    In the case of large nations … go ask Donald Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Catalonia, in the southeastern corner of Spain, is in the news.

    Seriously, Fred? Never saw a map?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maus
    Seriously, Anon at #35. It's John, not Fred. Hypocrite much?
    The geo-location is not relatively germane to John's point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Miro23

    I’m currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.
     
    You wouldn't win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:

    Tenth Amendment

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
     

    So go back to the original idea, and mostly RAISE TAXES LOCALLY AND SPEND THEM LOCALLY. Combine this with the removal of the Washington/FED right to create credit and the removal of most Presidential powers and that's the end of Washington.

    And BTW you could also change the name of the "United States" to the "Confederation of American States" or "American Confederation" in recognition of the fact that states don' t have to be united, but could still respect each other's decisions and differences of opinion.

    Let Texas be Texas and California be California.

    It's also a useful way to stop foreign military adventures, since local voters would have to discuss the issue beforehand, budget for the expense and raise a special tax.

    As Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out (I believe it was in dissenting opinion in Gozales v. Raich), the SCOTUS with their radical judicial activism (from both the ‘liberal’ and the ‘conservative’ sides if the Court) have effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

    I agree with Thomas on that score, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with those who find merit in the Confederacy’s claim that the Tenth Amendment justified formation of the CSA and the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Confederate States Army, thus beginning the Civil War.

    If the Tenth Amendment were intended to nullify Article I, Section 10, then it needed to spell it out within the Amendment.

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation …

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    — U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 10

    Sure, there are arguments to the contrary, but this approach is by far the most practical and truly conservative approach. The solution to the problem is difficult but plain enough. The people need to make clear to themselves and to their representatives in Congress that they do not want to see Congress surrendering its powers under the Constitution, whether that be to the Executive or to the Judiciary; and, the Congress then needs to rein in the activism of the SCOTUS, exercising their powers as given in Art. III, Sect. 2:

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. — U.S. Const.Art. III, Section 2

    This approach to the necessary reforms is hoping for a lot from the American people, and it will be a long and difficult pull to effect it, but any other course will be either more difficult or will entail disaster. Many Americans have given up on reform within the Constitution, and have given up on the Constitution, and thus they would gladly court disaster today, thinking that we already have disaster … but what is the way out if not by way of the Constitution?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    The Constitution is a dead letter. It is routinely flouted by both parties. One of the parties clearly despises it except when judges that they appointed can interpret it to mean the opposite of what it clearly means. If what you are suggesting were possible, I’d be in full agreement with you, but that ship has long since sailed.
    , @Miro23
    The South tried to break away from the Union - and the result was the Civil War.

    The idea is to stay within a looser Union (American Confederation?), whereby States can still respect and cooperate with each other, but with a lot smaller role for Washington, and correspondingly greater role in looking after their own affairs (raising and spending taxes locally).

    Power would switch back to the State/County level and require plenty of citizen participation (almost certainly obligatory) which wouldn't be a bad thing.

    “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” -George Bernard Shaw

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. unit472 says:

    One great big fly in the ointment of any nation is the rise of the global corporation and finance. If the CEO of GM could claim during his Senate confirmation hearing back in the first Eisenhower Administration that there was no conflict of interest from his being Defense Secretary because ‘what was good for GM was good for America” ( and vice versa) that is no longer true because GM and most other major companies have no ‘national’ base just markets.

    As we are seeing right now large companies based out of Catalonia are scrambling to register their business address elsewhere to escape any punitive sanctions that might be levied by Madrid or Brussels against a putative Catalonian state.

    Unless a ‘nation’ is large enough to fight back against the dominant power of large corporations ( and really today only the United States and China are) national independence is mostly an illusion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Miro23 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Question.

    The race problem in America. Was it slavery or race?

    Imagine the following thought-experiment.

    300 yrs ago, suppose the colonists brought over 300,000 white or Asian slaves and 300,000 free black Africans.

    Suppose, at some time, the white or Asian slaves were freed whereas blacks were never under slavery.

    Today, which group would be causing the most problems? White or Asian descendants of slaves or black descendants of free blacks?

    I think blacks would still be causing the most problem.

    Genocide is worse than slavery, and it's been said pre-American Indians got 'genocided'. But they cause far less problems than blacks(and despite their great poverty).

    Blacks were bound to cause more problems because of biological factors. They are more muscular, more aggressive, and less reflective.

    I would have two answers to this.

    First, that slavery is mostly a rhetorical tool in the ongoing Jewish/ SJW race war against Anglo Americans (of course ignoring the Jewish involvement). The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can’t see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work.

    There was a recent comment on Unz from someone running three fast food jobs with hopelessly long, tightly controlled hours and lousy conditions. This work allowed him to support his family in a minimal way. You could argue that he was not a slave and was “free”, but in what real sense is he any different from a slave. Same as Mexican illegals picking fruit. They probably work as hard as black slaves did for a minimum of food and shelter.

    Second, it’s a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities. But it’s still a mean. People like Carson and Obama can be way above the national average on intelligence and good luck to them.

    A positive idea, is that different average ability levels aren’t used to identify superior or inferior races – but rather to see individuals co-operatively contributing at their own particular level to a project (e.g. family or workplace). Some are at a higher level, and some at a lower level, but that’s true of any organization, and doesn’t stop people co-operating with a fair (not equal) share out of the rewards.

    But it isn’t going to happen in a divisive SJW environment where the media and education constantly push a racial narrative, and it’s not going to happen with mass immigration that overwhelms any efforts at integration.

    And, of course, it’s all much easier with one race, one country, which is more or less how the world developed naturally over millennia.

    However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one’s own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents – pushing forward as an organized racial block to appropriate power for Jewish racial advantage – even to the extent of expending $ trillions of US resources for the benefit of Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can’t see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work."

    First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being "valuable" and as "property"; in other words, "gimmedats". Why didn't Europeans work the land themselves? Were they THAT lazy? Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights. Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else's fields.

    "Second, it’s a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities."

    IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.

    "However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one’s own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents..."

    Why are you so obsessed with Jews?
    , @MBlanc46
    Your argument is quite similar to that of Fogel and Engerman in Time on the Cross and Fogel in Without Consent and Contract.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and “blood and soil” nationalism versus “citizenist” (to use I think Sailer’s term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be “racist”.
     
    Well....a little correction if I may.

    Ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism is definitely much stronger in self-sacrifice and will to fight.
    Definitely.
    But, in this case, I am not quite sure that Catalan seccseionists aren't actually exactly that.
    I have a feeling that underneath that "citizenist' veneer there is that "ethnic and blood and soil" element.
    If...if that is the case you actually, secession wise, have a perfect combination: ethnic solidarity and open mind; open mind technically, technologically and, of course, tactically.

    You probably visit ARRSE.
    Take a look as some of posts by Brits (and ex-military most likely) who live there.Those hint, strongly, at "ethnic element" in this move.

    I mean, really, at the end of the day, why this can't be as Slovakia and Czech Republic?
    Or Baltic states?
    Or Macedonia (before Kosovo, that is....)?

    If it goes shooting it could be Slovenia. Short and effective for secession.
    Of course, from there it can go through Croatia into, even, Bosnia. Uglier and much uglier.
    I doubt it can go Chechnya or Kosovo. Just not the environment, IMHO.

    I see the problem here as deeply emotional and irrational element (by secessionists) versus modern, soft, civilized logic of Western world (by EU, NATO, US).

    The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic aside.
    If....if.....that's that "real" nationalism.

    We, outsiders, don't know that.
    Only Catalans do.

    I agree that there are certainly strong ethno-centric elements to the nationalism in Catalonia, as presumably there always are in nationalist movements of any size. My point is really that the movement itself is unable to mobilise those sentiments effectively – among the most powerful human motivating factors around, which is exactly why globalists place such a big emphasis on delegitimising their expression, criminalising and silencing them – probably because they are hobbled by their own leftist internationalist political philosophy (see the political origins of the main Catalan separatist parties).

    The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic aside.
    If….if…..that’s that “real” nationalism.

    We, outsiders, don’t know that.
    Only Catalans do.

    Yes, we can’t know it for certain. But we can try to assess it from the available indicators, and my assessment fwiw is that that is not going to happen in the Catalan case, for various reasons.

    Only a fool or a liar would claim certainty on such an issue, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Randal says:
    @Hibernian
    "...— with the rest of Britain not far behind..."

    Ireland was English ruled for centuries, and part of the United Kingdom for about a century and a quarter (Six counties still are.), but it was never part of Britain. Hibernia and Brittania are two separate islands, a fact of geography apart fron politics, culture, etc.

    Yes, Derbyshire was a little lax using the term “Britain”, when he should have written: “…with the rest of the British Isles not far behind…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. anon says: • Disclaimer

    There are enormous economic advantages in having a large, national economy. You have a large domestic market, you can have a highly diversified economy, and you have a national currency. The best way to view this is from the outside. Decades of largely failed development economics are entirely consumed with how to overcome the advantages of the large, highly developed economies.

    Industrialization’s secret sauce was scale — which a large national economy can support. This is so obvious and fundamental that it seems to be invisible. But also — a large national economy also has ‘diseconomies’ and people have had to focus so long on those that it is understandable that the advantages no longer have the proper mindshare.

    I view the US as both very strong as well as an underachiever.

    Regardless. If a sub-nation splits off and then, for example, adopts the Euro, belongs to the EU, and is a member of NATO, then it isn’t much of a nation. Leaving aside the question of military, would an independent California continue to use the dollar? And have free trade and open borders with Oregon and Nevada? And have a free trade agreement with the current 49 US states? If so, then there isn’t all that much point. If not, then there are real costs and likely much higher costs than the states can imagine. The West Coast does quite will in global trade. And not in small part because Boeing is subsidized and US Tech firms and Media share a currency with the rest of the country that don’t have the same export strength. Not unlike Germany, who benefit from a Euro that is much weaker than a stand alone Mark would be.

    And finally — like it or not — the US will be dealing with a country (China) that will have massive scale advantages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I have no problem trading with the people of California, and I’d hope that they’d have no problem trading with me. But I don’t want to live under the sort of laws that Californians want to live under. Best solution: We go our separate ways, but still cooperate where such cooperation is seen to be beneficial to both th parties.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. jeppo says:
    @Cato

    But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.
     
    Yes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that "homogeneous" Han core?

    Yes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that “homogeneous” Han core?

    There are seven major subgroups of spoken Chinese. Of those Mandarin is by far the largest, with about 950 million first language speakers, or 70% of China’s total population. So even if China was reduced to its Mandarin core it would still be a massive nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Numinous says:

    Enoch Powell was a hypocrite. He was an imperialist and wanted to be Viceroy of India. Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood. To him it was always “nationalism for me but not for thee.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    And what he got was 'colonization for us, but not for you, whitey'. Universal brown and black hypocrisy, we might call that.

    Let us now summon forth the angrily weeping comfortably tenured.
    , @MBlanc46
    Probably not the best venue for Enoch Powell bashing.
    , @songbird
    I very much doubt the topline percentage of Europeans in India ever even cracked 0.1%. Europeans were never realistically going to replace Indians in India and become the majority. The normal historical dynamic for colonization by Europeans in the long term is to dramatically increase the native population, this even true, overall, for the Americas, if you count copies of genes.

    Countless white cities have been transformed into non-white cities I don't think there is a single example of the reverse happening.

    In a 2011, 60% (n=1000) of Jamaicans surveyed said that they thought independence was a mistake. Only 17% disagreed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Light Roast

    Catalonia, in the southeastern corner of Spain,
     
    It's in the northeastern corner of Spain, actually.

    It’s in the northeastern corner of Spain, actually.

    In that case, which corner is the Basque country around Bilbao and San Sebastian? Maybe that is not a corner at all. Spain seems to have 2 north east corners, but you might want to call the Barcelona corner the south east corner as it sits on the Mediterranean facing of the Iberian peninsula, rather than the Atlantic coast or Bay of Biscay.

    In any case, if you really want to nit pick, Barcelona is below the corner formed by the Mediterranean and the French frontier and faces towards the Balearics.

    And are Almeria and Gibraltar and Huelva located at corners, and what are they called?

    Spain is actually shaped like the tilted head of a bull, with the two horns extending over Portugal and below France, so it has a lots of angles and corners and is not as square or rhomboidal as one might think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dust
    Who’s on first?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Why I Was Wrong About Brexit

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @Truth

    That’s not altogether fair. But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians
     
    Atila, you're being paged!

    That’s why I left the RCC. If Caucasians accept black/Asian priests-popes, then all this talk about saving the West is useless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Corvinus says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    “Defending the Constitution” during the American Civil War almost turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.
     
    Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades. Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government.

    “Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades.”

    In all likelihood, southern plantation owners would have kept their slaves for decades. Exactly why the moral scourge required eradication.

    “Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government.”

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    Regarding Mr. Derbyshire’s inquire “If Catalonia, why not California, or Texas, or New England?”, there is a simple response–American secession is illegal.

    Regarding Mr. Derbyshire who says “Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them”, well, Americans are mutts. We always have been and always will be. We intermixed racially and ethically. As a NATION, we share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    In all likelihood, southern plantation owners would have kept their slaves for decades. Exactly why the moral scourge required eradication.

     

    Unlikely. Industrialization would have rendered Southern slavery non-competitive. Also, spare me your personal moralizing, eh, Corv? If the moral scourge required eradication, it required eradication a thousand years ago. [Poof] non sequitur.

    Derbyshire is not authoritative. I read his opinions occasionally, and have yet to adopt any of them. You, now, go right ahead. 'Taint authoritative, sorry.
    , @songbird
    When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Corvinus says:
    @Miro23
    I would have two answers to this.

    First, that slavery is mostly a rhetorical tool in the ongoing Jewish/ SJW race war against Anglo Americans (of course ignoring the Jewish involvement). The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can't see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work.

    There was a recent comment on Unz from someone running three fast food jobs with hopelessly long, tightly controlled hours and lousy conditions. This work allowed him to support his family in a minimal way. You could argue that he was not a slave and was "free", but in what real sense is he any different from a slave. Same as Mexican illegals picking fruit. They probably work as hard as black slaves did for a minimum of food and shelter.

    Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities. But it's still a mean. People like Carson and Obama can be way above the national average on intelligence and good luck to them.

    A positive idea, is that different average ability levels aren't used to identify superior or inferior races - but rather to see individuals co-operatively contributing at their own particular level to a project (e.g. family or workplace). Some are at a higher level, and some at a lower level, but that's true of any organization, and doesn't stop people co-operating with a fair (not equal) share out of the rewards.

    But it isn't going to happen in a divisive SJW environment where the media and education constantly push a racial narrative, and it's not going to happen with mass immigration that overwhelms any efforts at integration.

    And, of course, it's all much easier with one race, one country, which is more or less how the world developed naturally over millennia.

    However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents - pushing forward as an organized racial block to appropriate power for Jewish racial advantage - even to the extent of expending $ trillions of US resources for the benefit of Israel.

    “The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can’t see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work.”

    First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being “valuable” and as “property”; in other words, “gimmedats”. Why didn’t Europeans work the land themselves? Were they THAT lazy? Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights. Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else’s fields.

    “Second, it’s a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities.”

    IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.

    “However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one’s own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents…”

    Why are you so obsessed with Jews?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being “valuable” and as “property”; in other words, “gimmedats”. .......Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights.
     
    How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously wrong but it doesn't automatically mean that the SJW trope "slaves were generally abused by their masters" is true.

    Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else’s fields.
     
    I never said that. I was talking about modern day, "free market" hard minimum wage work for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery.

    “Second, it’s a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities.”

    IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.
     

    Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    “However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one’s own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents…”

    Why are you so obsessed with Jews?
     

    I know that it's taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism).

    The true obsession is US media concern with hiding the fact.

    , @MBlanc46
    Your grasp of the realities of the slave trade is weak indeed. Those who “stripped” the homeland and identity from the African slaves were the Africans who kidnapped them (or enslaved them by judicial process) and then sold them to European and Arab slave traders. The European and Arab slave traders (and those who bought the slaves from them) are not without serious fault, but they were simply availing themselves of a trade that had existed for centuries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Pericles says:
    @Numinous
    Enoch Powell was a hypocrite. He was an imperialist and wanted to be Viceroy of India. Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood. To him it was always "nationalism for me but not for thee."

    And what he got was ‘colonization for us, but not for you, whitey’. Universal brown and black hypocrisy, we might call that.

    Let us now summon forth the angrily weeping comfortably tenured.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous
    Is America a nation?

    It is a country, but to call it a nation seems a bit too far.

    Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.

    Nothing.

    “Is America a nation?”

    Absolutely.

    “Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.”

    Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.”

    Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.
     
    Having human beings living in a country only differentiates it from uninhabited territory, so is not a very useful distinction as Antarctica and Greenland and the Arctic seem like the only really large land masses that are not inhabited, and they all have one thing in common--they are very cold.

    Actually Spanish is spoken as the primary language in Puerto Rico, and there are other countries, for example Canada other than Quebec, where the way of life might have more in common with Alaska than with Puerto Rico or Hawaii, which also has its own language, though it is secondary to English.
    , @MBlanc46
    Less and less a common language.
    , @Hibernian
    Language and culture. Two out of three isn't too bad. Meet the new Michael Savage, Corvinus.
    , @Chris Mallory

    “Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.”
     
    Hawaii and Puerto Rico should be given their independence, no matter if they want it or not. Alaska can stay or it can go on it's own. Every other region, state or portion there of should be given the ability to secede.

    America is a nation, but Asians and Spanish hybrids are not Americans. They might have US citizenship, but they are not American. Derbyshire isn't an American either, he is an immigrant Englishman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Corvinus
    "Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades."

    In all likelihood, southern plantation owners would have kept their slaves for decades. Exactly why the moral scourge required eradication.

    "Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    Regarding Mr. Derbyshire's inquire "If Catalonia, why not California, or Texas, or New England?", there is a simple response--American secession is illegal.

    Regarding Mr. Derbyshire who says "Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them", well, Americans are mutts. We always have been and always will be. We intermixed racially and ethically. As a NATION, we share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    In all likelihood, southern plantation owners would have kept their slaves for decades. Exactly why the moral scourge required eradication.

    Unlikely. Industrialization would have rendered Southern slavery non-competitive. Also, spare me your personal moralizing, eh, Corv? If the moral scourge required eradication, it required eradication a thousand years ago. [Poof] non sequitur.

    Derbyshire is not authoritative. I read his opinions occasionally, and have yet to adopt any of them. You, now, go right ahead. ‘Taint authoritative, sorry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Non sequitar--an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

    Slavery is a moral scourge.
    Moral scourges need to be eradicated.
    Therefore, slavery is a moral scourge that needs to be eradicated.**

    Please point out how the conclusion** does not logically flow from the previous statements.

    "Unlikely. Industrialization would have rendered Southern slavery non-competitive."

    Southern slave owners, as well as northern business owners, would have employed slaves rather than imported foreigners to do the backbreaking labor. Then, your ancestors would likely not come to America, and that would have been an absolute shame.

    "Also, spare me your personal moralizing, eh, Corv?"

    The same way you personally moralize about the scourge of liberals, the elites, and the Jews?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. the Derb does not favor breaking up the large nations…what a surprise…after all, he is a conservative…and conservatism is nothing if not a propaganda arm of Big Business…and keeping large nations together is important to Big Business profits…how else can Big Business thwart the will of the white majority? After all, the governments of large nations such as america are not really controllable by the white majority and instead are controlled by….wait for it…Big Business!

    In general, the larger the nation, the less united and cohesive the nation…and the easier it is for Big Business to control it…the smaller the nation, in general, the more unified and cohesive….so the people are more united…and they are more in control of their own government….large nations like the USA are not united and cohesive….and thus easier for Big Business to control…the media and the GOP are against the Catalonia revolt…a Catalonian nation would be more united and cohesive than the larger nation of Spain with Catalonia…Big Business will lose out….a Catalonian nation would be better able to control its own immigration…and no more cheap labor for Big Business…no more consumer demand via immigration..oh no…and no more cheap domestic labor for upper class propagandists like…the Derb

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I should like to see John Derbyshire respond to this? Ahoy, Mr Derbyshire, are you reading the comments?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Corvinus
    "Is America a nation?"

    Absolutely.

    "Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common."

    Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.”

    Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    Having human beings living in a country only differentiates it from uninhabited territory, so is not a very useful distinction as Antarctica and Greenland and the Arctic seem like the only really large land masses that are not inhabited, and they all have one thing in common–they are very cold.

    Actually Spanish is spoken as the primary language in Puerto Rico, and there are other countries, for example Canada other than Quebec, where the way of life might have more in common with Alaska than with Puerto Rico or Hawaii, which also has its own language, though it is secondary to English.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. I guess this was just a Dream Crime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Corvinus says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    In all likelihood, southern plantation owners would have kept their slaves for decades. Exactly why the moral scourge required eradication.

     

    Unlikely. Industrialization would have rendered Southern slavery non-competitive. Also, spare me your personal moralizing, eh, Corv? If the moral scourge required eradication, it required eradication a thousand years ago. [Poof] non sequitur.

    Derbyshire is not authoritative. I read his opinions occasionally, and have yet to adopt any of them. You, now, go right ahead. 'Taint authoritative, sorry.

    Non sequitar–an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

    Slavery is a moral scourge.
    Moral scourges need to be eradicated.
    Therefore, slavery is a moral scourge that needs to be eradicated.**

    Please point out how the conclusion** does not logically flow from the previous statements.

    “Unlikely. Industrialization would have rendered Southern slavery non-competitive.”

    Southern slave owners, as well as northern business owners, would have employed slaves rather than imported foreigners to do the backbreaking labor. Then, your ancestors would likely not come to America, and that would have been an absolute shame.

    “Also, spare me your personal moralizing, eh, Corv?”

    The same way you personally moralize about the scourge of liberals, the elites, and the Jews?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Well, if you wanna be that way, let's play REAL argument -- prove your major premiss.

    Slavery is a moral scourge.
     
    Then prove your minor premiss.

    Moral scourges need to be eradicated.
     
    Your formal logic is adequate as form, but prove those premises. I'm easy. Then prove that the moral scourge of slavery is specifically required to be eradicated in 1861, versus 1761 or any other previous year.

    Southern slave owners, as well as northern business owners, would have employed slaves rather than imported foreigners to do the backbreaking labor. Then, your ancestors would likely not come to America, and that would have been an absolute shame.
     
    Nope. Industrialization made slavery as instituted in the Confederacy non-competitive from a business-profitabiliy standpoint. I don't fetch links to prove well-known facts, but feel free to google and read about it.

    My maternal-line ancestor, Edward Colborne, arrived in Boston on the English ship Defence on October 8, 1635. He subsequently was one of the founders of Dracut, Massachusetts.

    My paternal line ancestor, Andrew, was one of three brothers who settled in Staunton, VA in 1732.

    I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War.

    Touche on the Jews. ;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Miro23 says:
    @Corvinus
    "The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can’t see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work."

    First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being "valuable" and as "property"; in other words, "gimmedats". Why didn't Europeans work the land themselves? Were they THAT lazy? Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights. Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else's fields.

    "Second, it’s a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities."

    IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.

    "However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one’s own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents..."

    Why are you so obsessed with Jews?

    First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being “valuable” and as “property”; in other words, “gimmedats”. …….Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights.

    How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously wrong but it doesn’t automatically mean that the SJW trope “slaves were generally abused by their masters” is true.

    Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else’s fields.

    I never said that. I was talking about modern day, “free market” hard minimum wage work for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery.

    “Second, it’s a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities.”

    IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.

    Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    “However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one’s own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents…”

    Why are you so obsessed with Jews?

    I know that it’s taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism).

    The true obsession is US media concern with hiding the fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously wrong but it doesn’t automatically mean that the SJW trope “slaves were generally abused by their masters” is true."

    "I never said that. I was talking about modern day, “free market” hard minimum wage work for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery."

    Again, how would you feel if your family was ripped from their homeland and forced to serve someone without compensation?

    "Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations."

    There are several instances today of slavery. Please educate yourself.

    http://www.alliesagainstslavery.org/slavery/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIje7jg4Tl1gIVGrnACh1kDwcoEAAYASAAEgITE_D_BwE

    Furthermore, you ASSUME that biological differences between people leads to those groups of people being other than able to to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    "I know that it’s taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism)."

    So, how much influence ought they have? What is the magic number here? Why are some whites obsessed with their supposed disparate impact on American government and culture? Are white people today really being bamboozled by Jews?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. MBlanc46 says:

    Sorry Mr Derbyshire. I know that you’re an American by choice while I’m merely one by ancestry, but it seems to me and to many others that the need to disaggregate is obvious and pressing. If I thought that there was even a remote chance of returning the republic to something reasonably like the one I grew up in during the 1950s and 1960s, I’d certainly make the effort to effect that change. But we’re past the point of no return. Too much of the nation is now a polyglot melange of Third Worlders. The only hope now is to try to save those parts of the Heartland that may yet be pulled back from the brink.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    The only hope now is to try to save those parts of the Heartland that may yet be pulled back from the brink.
     
    I've been toying with the notion of a "Virtual Nation", spawned from the charred remnants of immigrant-scourged America. Something that obviates state borders.

    NB; I kinda picked up "scourge" from Corvy. Great word -- a gut-puncher. ;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. MBlanc46 says:
    @Truth

    If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, or New England?
     
    Don't quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.

    Perhaps it’s time for another one, if we can’t separate peacefully.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. MBlanc46 says:
    @Miro23

    I’m currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.
     
    You wouldn't win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:

    Tenth Amendment

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
     

    So go back to the original idea, and mostly RAISE TAXES LOCALLY AND SPEND THEM LOCALLY. Combine this with the removal of the Washington/FED right to create credit and the removal of most Presidential powers and that's the end of Washington.

    And BTW you could also change the name of the "United States" to the "Confederation of American States" or "American Confederation" in recognition of the fact that states don' t have to be united, but could still respect each other's decisions and differences of opinion.

    Let Texas be Texas and California be California.

    It's also a useful way to stop foreign military adventures, since local voters would have to discuss the issue beforehand, budget for the expense and raise a special tax.

    There’s at least as good a chance of disaggregation as there is of returning to federalism. I’d say it’s a considerably better chance. The globalists/multiculturalists in the blue regions (blue islands in a sea of red) will never consent to federalism. They might not be able to prevent other regions from breaking away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. MBlanc46 says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    As Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out (I believe it was in dissenting opinion in Gozales v. Raich), the SCOTUS with their radical judicial activism (from both the 'liberal' and the 'conservative' sides if the Court) have effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

    I agree with Thomas on that score, but that doesn't mean that I agree with those who find merit in the Confederacy's claim that the Tenth Amendment justified formation of the CSA and the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Confederate States Army, thus beginning the Civil War.

    If the Tenth Amendment were intended to nullify Article I, Section 10, then it needed to spell it out within the Amendment.

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ...

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    --- U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 10
     
    Sure, there are arguments to the contrary, but this approach is by far the most practical and truly conservative approach. The solution to the problem is difficult but plain enough. The people need to make clear to themselves and to their representatives in Congress that they do not want to see Congress surrendering its powers under the Constitution, whether that be to the Executive or to the Judiciary; and, the Congress then needs to rein in the activism of the SCOTUS, exercising their powers as given in Art. III, Sect. 2:

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. -- U.S. Const.Art. III, Section 2
     
    This approach to the necessary reforms is hoping for a lot from the American people, and it will be a long and difficult pull to effect it, but any other course will be either more difficult or will entail disaster. Many Americans have given up on reform within the Constitution, and have given up on the Constitution, and thus they would gladly court disaster today, thinking that we already have disaster ... but what is the way out if not by way of the Constitution?

    The Constitution is a dead letter. It is routinely flouted by both parties. One of the parties clearly despises it except when judges that they appointed can interpret it to mean the opposite of what it clearly means. If what you are suggesting were possible, I’d be in full agreement with you, but that ship has long since sailed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    The Constitution is a dead letter.
     
    That confused me, briefly. I thought you wrote "The Constitution is a French letter." That would also have been correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. MBlanc46 says:
    @Miro23
    I would have two answers to this.

    First, that slavery is mostly a rhetorical tool in the ongoing Jewish/ SJW race war against Anglo Americans (of course ignoring the Jewish involvement). The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can't see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work.

    There was a recent comment on Unz from someone running three fast food jobs with hopelessly long, tightly controlled hours and lousy conditions. This work allowed him to support his family in a minimal way. You could argue that he was not a slave and was "free", but in what real sense is he any different from a slave. Same as Mexican illegals picking fruit. They probably work as hard as black slaves did for a minimum of food and shelter.

    Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities. But it's still a mean. People like Carson and Obama can be way above the national average on intelligence and good luck to them.

    A positive idea, is that different average ability levels aren't used to identify superior or inferior races - but rather to see individuals co-operatively contributing at their own particular level to a project (e.g. family or workplace). Some are at a higher level, and some at a lower level, but that's true of any organization, and doesn't stop people co-operating with a fair (not equal) share out of the rewards.

    But it isn't going to happen in a divisive SJW environment where the media and education constantly push a racial narrative, and it's not going to happen with mass immigration that overwhelms any efforts at integration.

    And, of course, it's all much easier with one race, one country, which is more or less how the world developed naturally over millennia.

    However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents - pushing forward as an organized racial block to appropriate power for Jewish racial advantage - even to the extent of expending $ trillions of US resources for the benefit of Israel.

    Your argument is quite similar to that of Fogel and Engerman in Time on the Cross and Fogel in Without Consent and Contract.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. MBlanc46 says:
    @anon
    There are enormous economic advantages in having a large, national economy. You have a large domestic market, you can have a highly diversified economy, and you have a national currency. The best way to view this is from the outside. Decades of largely failed development economics are entirely consumed with how to overcome the advantages of the large, highly developed economies.

    Industrialization's secret sauce was scale -- which a large national economy can support. This is so obvious and fundamental that it seems to be invisible. But also -- a large national economy also has 'diseconomies' and people have had to focus so long on those that it is understandable that the advantages no longer have the proper mindshare.

    I view the US as both very strong as well as an underachiever.

    Regardless. If a sub-nation splits off and then, for example, adopts the Euro, belongs to the EU, and is a member of NATO, then it isn't much of a nation. Leaving aside the question of military, would an independent California continue to use the dollar? And have free trade and open borders with Oregon and Nevada? And have a free trade agreement with the current 49 US states? If so, then there isn't all that much point. If not, then there are real costs and likely much higher costs than the states can imagine. The West Coast does quite will in global trade. And not in small part because Boeing is subsidized and US Tech firms and Media share a currency with the rest of the country that don't have the same export strength. Not unlike Germany, who benefit from a Euro that is much weaker than a stand alone Mark would be.

    And finally -- like it or not -- the US will be dealing with a country (China) that will have massive scale advantages.

    I have no problem trading with the people of California, and I’d hope that they’d have no problem trading with me. But I don’t want to live under the sort of laws that Californians want to live under. Best solution: We go our separate ways, but still cooperate where such cooperation is seen to be beneficial to both th parties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I have no problem trading with the people of California
     
    That might create a demand for speakers of Mexi-pidgin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. MBlanc46 says:
    @Corvinus
    "The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can’t see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work."

    First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being "valuable" and as "property"; in other words, "gimmedats". Why didn't Europeans work the land themselves? Were they THAT lazy? Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights. Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else's fields.

    "Second, it’s a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities."

    IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.

    "However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one’s own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents..."

    Why are you so obsessed with Jews?

    Your grasp of the realities of the slave trade is weak indeed. Those who “stripped” the homeland and identity from the African slaves were the Africans who kidnapped them (or enslaved them by judicial process) and then sold them to European and Arab slave traders. The European and Arab slave traders (and those who bought the slaves from them) are not without serious fault, but they were simply availing themselves of a trade that had existed for centuries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Your grasp of the realities of the slave trade is weak indeed. Those who “stripped” the homeland and identity from the African slaves were the Africans who kidnapped them (or enslaved them by judicial process) and then sold them to European and Arab slave traders."

    Indeed, there is culpability on the part of African tribal groups who sold captives or prisoners of war--their enemies--to Europeans. However, this demand for black labor was generated by Europeans themselves to make a quick buck. Eventually, those tribes who procured slaves for Europeans became targets for enslavement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. MBlanc46 says:
    @Numinous
    Enoch Powell was a hypocrite. He was an imperialist and wanted to be Viceroy of India. Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood. To him it was always "nationalism for me but not for thee."

    Probably not the best venue for Enoch Powell bashing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike
    43. Numinous:

    Enoch Powell was a hypocrite. He was an imperialist and wanted to be Viceroy of India. Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood. To him it was always "nationalism for me but not for thee."

     

    64. MBlanc46:

    Probably not the best venue for Enoch Powell bashing.
     
    Especially not if the bashing utilises "a style in which it is impossible to tell the truth".

    Powell's own preferred discourse attempted to explore and analyse political issues in order to clarify the subtleties and complexities of the arguments. Whether or not you agreed with his conclusions, his approach usually helped his opponents as well as his supporters to a better understanding.

    This approach was evident not only in written articles and public speeches but also in unscripted, exploratory discussions such as the BBC Radio panel discussion from which this extract comes:

    ...it depends indeed on whether the immigrants are different, and different in important respects from the existing population. Clearly, if they are identical, then no change for the good or bad can be brought about by the immigration. But if they are different, and to the extent that they are different, then numbers clearly are of the essence and this is not wholly – or mainly, necessarily – a matter of colour. For example, if the immigrants were Germans or Russians, their colour would be approximately the same as ours, but the problems which would be created and the change which could be brought about by a large introduction of a bloc of Germans or Russians into five areas in this country would be as serious – and in some respects more serious – than could follow from an introduction of a similar number of West Indians or Pakistanis.

    Any Questions?, BBC Radio (29 November 1968), from Reflections of a Statesman. The Writings and Speeches of Enoch Powell (London: Bellew, 1991), p. 395.
     
    This is a contrast with mere name-calling such as: "hypocrite", "imperialist", "a demagogue braying about rivers of blood". It also disposes of the disingenuous rhetoric of

    Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood.

     

    There was never any reason to suppose that Powell objected to "a few workers", whatever their colour or "race". "Numbers were of the essence" because he was concerned about the effects if the few were to multiply into a trend of mass immigration which would create "serious problems" for the nation.

    This was not because he had a crystal ball which could predict terrorism and riots on the streets of London and elsewhere. It was partly based on the contemporary realities of "unrest" in the US and the prospect that Britain could create for itself a repetition of the same problems.

    You can still argue that such fears were exaggerated and possibly hypocritical. But as "MBlanc46" implies, Unz Review is not the place to do it using blunt instruments.

    And speaking of blunt instruments, would "Numinous" concede that Powell never actually said “nationalism for me but not for thee”, or anything like it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. MBlanc46 says:
    @Corvinus
    "Is America a nation?"

    Absolutely.

    "Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common."

    Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    Less and less a common language.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Mblanc, you're entirely correct, unfortunately. English is being supplemented, and gradually supplanted, by Spanish, and it's not just in our biggest cities. Not at all.

    Here in southern California, we can drive twenty or fifty or even eighty miles away from LA and still sometimes have a hard time finding people who speak/understand English well enough to make small talk, understand a simple joke, get to know each other even at a basic level, etc. We have had this experience regularly in Riverside, San Bernardino, and to a lesser extent in Bakersfield, all pretty far from LA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. MBlanc46 says:
    @Propagandist Hacker
    the Derb does not favor breaking up the large nations...what a surprise...after all, he is a conservative...and conservatism is nothing if not a propaganda arm of Big Business...and keeping large nations together is important to Big Business profits...how else can Big Business thwart the will of the white majority? After all, the governments of large nations such as america are not really controllable by the white majority and instead are controlled by....wait for it...Big Business!

    In general, the larger the nation, the less united and cohesive the nation...and the easier it is for Big Business to control it...the smaller the nation, in general, the more unified and cohesive....so the people are more united...and they are more in control of their own government....large nations like the USA are not united and cohesive....and thus easier for Big Business to control...the media and the GOP are against the Catalonia revolt...a Catalonian nation would be more united and cohesive than the larger nation of Spain with Catalonia...Big Business will lose out....a Catalonian nation would be better able to control its own immigration...and no more cheap labor for Big Business...no more consumer demand via immigration..oh no...and no more cheap domestic labor for upper class propagandists like...the Derb

    I should like to see John Derbyshire respond to this? Ahoy, Mr Derbyshire, are you reading the comments?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. “Here’s where I renew my call for a worldwide alliance of nationalists along the lines of the old Comintern, the Communist International. We can call this alliance the Natintern, the Nationalist International. I’m still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable anthem, to be called of course The Nationale.”

    We already have a stirring anthem; we just need new lyrics.

    I wonder whether this Billy Bragg (the name itself is humorous) is sincere, or is an anti-Communist parodist. His exaggerated British accent sounds comical (e.g., “comraids”), and his lyrics, with their imperfect scansion, read like a mock on political correctness:

    Stand up, all victims of oppression / For the tyrants fear your might / Don’t cling so hard to your possessions [a taunt at John Lennon's "Imagine"?] / For you have nothing if you have no rights / Let racist ignorance be ended …
    Let no one build walls to divide us / Walls of hatred nor walls of stone [Hear that, Trump?] / Come greet the dawn and stand beside us / We’ll live together or we’ll die alone …

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike

    I wonder whether this Billy Bragg (the name itself is humorous) is sincere, or is an anti-Communist parodist. His exaggerated British accent sounds comical (e.g., “comraids”), and his lyrics, with their imperfect scansion, read like a mock on political correctness:

     

    Sorry, Mark; you've got it completely wrong.

    Billy Bragg is his name.

    His "socialist" boilerplate is sincere - Billy takes it (and himself) very seriously. He would be dismayed that someone would think him "an anti-communist parodist".

    His accent which you find "exaggerated" and "comical" is not "British" but a variety of English. It is the regional accent of working class Londoners known as "cockney". Listen to a recording of Jeremy Corbyn (Billy would like to see him as Britain's Prime Minister) and you might hear a muted echo of Billy's cockney.

    It is the accent which Dick van Dyke (to a cockney "the name itself is humorous") made such an appalling attempt to mimic in Mary Poppins - which might be why you assumed Billy to be a parodist.

    In Britain, "comraids" is standard pronunciation, and not only among the working classes. "Comrads", which I believe is the American pronunciation, sounds to the British like a pretentious attempt to make it sound like a "French word".

    Now, Mark, have another look at the lyrics you quoted at the end of your comment. He's not taunting Lennon's "Imagine". It's not parody. "A mock on political correctness"? No, he means every word.

    Welcome to modern Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Corvinus
    Non sequitar--an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

    Slavery is a moral scourge.
    Moral scourges need to be eradicated.
    Therefore, slavery is a moral scourge that needs to be eradicated.**

    Please point out how the conclusion** does not logically flow from the previous statements.

    "Unlikely. Industrialization would have rendered Southern slavery non-competitive."

    Southern slave owners, as well as northern business owners, would have employed slaves rather than imported foreigners to do the backbreaking labor. Then, your ancestors would likely not come to America, and that would have been an absolute shame.

    "Also, spare me your personal moralizing, eh, Corv?"

    The same way you personally moralize about the scourge of liberals, the elites, and the Jews?

    Well, if you wanna be that way, let’s play REAL argument — prove your major premiss.

    Slavery is a moral scourge.

    Then prove your minor premiss.

    Moral scourges need to be eradicated.

    Your formal logic is adequate as form, but prove those premises. I’m easy. Then prove that the moral scourge of slavery is specifically required to be eradicated in 1861, versus 1761 or any other previous year.

    Southern slave owners, as well as northern business owners, would have employed slaves rather than imported foreigners to do the backbreaking labor. Then, your ancestors would likely not come to America, and that would have been an absolute shame.

    Nope. Industrialization made slavery as instituted in the Confederacy non-competitive from a business-profitabiliy standpoint. I don’t fetch links to prove well-known facts, but feel free to google and read about it.

    My maternal-line ancestor, Edward Colborne, arrived in Boston on the English ship Defence on October 8, 1635. He subsequently was one of the founders of Dracut, Massachusetts.

    My paternal line ancestor, Andrew, was one of three brothers who settled in Staunton, VA in 1732.

    I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War.

    Touche on the Jews. ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Then prove your minor premiss."

    An inability for a person to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and works without remuneration is immoral. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

    "Then prove that the moral scourge of slavery is specifically required to be eradicated in 1861, versus 1761 or any other previous year."

    The moral scourge of slavery ought to have been eradicated at ANY and ALL times. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

    "Nope. Industrialization made slavery as instituted in the Confederacy non-competitive from a business-profitabiliy standpoint. I don’t fetch links to prove well-known facts, but feel free to google and read about it."

    Not necessarily.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/economic-impact-slavery-south

    "My maternal-line ancestor, Edward Colborne, arrived in Boston on the English ship Defence on October 8, 1635. He subsequently was one of the founders of Dracut, Massachusetts. My paternal line ancestor, Andrew, was one of three brothers who settled in Staunton, VA in 1732."

    You could be telling the truth here.

    "I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War."

    Yes, spare us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @MBlanc46
    The Constitution is a dead letter. It is routinely flouted by both parties. One of the parties clearly despises it except when judges that they appointed can interpret it to mean the opposite of what it clearly means. If what you are suggesting were possible, I’d be in full agreement with you, but that ship has long since sailed.

    The Constitution is a dead letter.

    That confused me, briefly. I thought you wrote “The Constitution is a French letter.” That would also have been correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    It’s just about as dead as France.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @MBlanc46
    I have no problem trading with the people of California, and I’d hope that they’d have no problem trading with me. But I don’t want to live under the sort of laws that Californians want to live under. Best solution: We go our separate ways, but still cooperate where such cooperation is seen to be beneficial to both th parties.

    I have no problem trading with the people of California

    That might create a demand for speakers of Mexi-pidgin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I wouldn’t do it, but I’ve no objection with others making an honest buck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @MBlanc46
    Sorry Mr Derbyshire. I know that you’re an American by choice while I’m merely one by ancestry, but it seems to me and to many others that the need to disaggregate is obvious and pressing. If I thought that there was even a remote chance of returning the republic to something reasonably like the one I grew up in during the 1950s and 1960s, I’d certainly make the effort to effect that change. But we’re past the point of no return. Too much of the nation is now a polyglot melange of Third Worlders. The only hope now is to try to save those parts of the Heartland that may yet be pulled back from the brink.

    The only hope now is to try to save those parts of the Heartland that may yet be pulled back from the brink.

    I’ve been toying with the notion of a “Virtual Nation”, spawned from the charred remnants of immigrant-scourged America. Something that obviates state borders.

    NB; I kinda picked up “scourge” from Corvy. Great word — a gut-puncher. ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I’d prefer real borders—with barriers and armed guards—but virtuality may be the best that we can attain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Wally says: • Website
    @Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften
    "If Catalonia, why not California, Texas, or New England?" Don't you know what happened to the South's attempt to secede! Do some homework, writer.

    How about reading the article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. MBlanc46 says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    The Constitution is a dead letter.
     
    That confused me, briefly. I thought you wrote "The Constitution is a French letter." That would also have been correct.

    It’s just about as dead as France.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. MBlanc46 says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    The only hope now is to try to save those parts of the Heartland that may yet be pulled back from the brink.
     
    I've been toying with the notion of a "Virtual Nation", spawned from the charred remnants of immigrant-scourged America. Something that obviates state borders.

    NB; I kinda picked up "scourge" from Corvy. Great word -- a gut-puncher. ;-)

    I’d prefer real borders—with barriers and armed guards—but virtuality may be the best that we can attain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. MBlanc46 says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I have no problem trading with the people of California
     
    That might create a demand for speakers of Mexi-pidgin.

    I wouldn’t do it, but I’ve no objection with others making an honest buck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Neal says:

    Who wants to be linked up with losers from Connecticut and Rhode Island.

    A Boston reader

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Hahahaaaa!

    Just some of the girls at Providence College.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Cato

    But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.
     
    Yes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that "homogeneous" Han core?

    Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.
     
    There are different opinions on this:

    The true foot soldiers of the political and economic program of Xi and Li are the people who have the most power in the current system – the local party leadership. This includes the heads of the 2,862 counties, 333 prefectures and 31 provincial-level divisions (not counting Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Put this group of just roughly 3,200 together, and you have the most important constituency of all for Xi and Li.

    The loyalty and competence of provincial leadership in contemporary China is critical. Many of the key leaders from this group in fact sit on the Central Committee.

    https://thediplomat.com/2013/11/in-china-all-politics-are-getting-more-local/

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. catalonia is in the northeastern corner of spain.

    it’s already happening. whites are moving to whitopias and blacks are moving back to the south.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. Miro23 says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    As Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out (I believe it was in dissenting opinion in Gozales v. Raich), the SCOTUS with their radical judicial activism (from both the 'liberal' and the 'conservative' sides if the Court) have effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

    I agree with Thomas on that score, but that doesn't mean that I agree with those who find merit in the Confederacy's claim that the Tenth Amendment justified formation of the CSA and the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Confederate States Army, thus beginning the Civil War.

    If the Tenth Amendment were intended to nullify Article I, Section 10, then it needed to spell it out within the Amendment.

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ...

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    --- U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 10
     
    Sure, there are arguments to the contrary, but this approach is by far the most practical and truly conservative approach. The solution to the problem is difficult but plain enough. The people need to make clear to themselves and to their representatives in Congress that they do not want to see Congress surrendering its powers under the Constitution, whether that be to the Executive or to the Judiciary; and, the Congress then needs to rein in the activism of the SCOTUS, exercising their powers as given in Art. III, Sect. 2:

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. -- U.S. Const.Art. III, Section 2
     
    This approach to the necessary reforms is hoping for a lot from the American people, and it will be a long and difficult pull to effect it, but any other course will be either more difficult or will entail disaster. Many Americans have given up on reform within the Constitution, and have given up on the Constitution, and thus they would gladly court disaster today, thinking that we already have disaster ... but what is the way out if not by way of the Constitution?

    The South tried to break away from the Union – and the result was the Civil War.

    The idea is to stay within a looser Union (American Confederation?), whereby States can still respect and cooperate with each other, but with a lot smaller role for Washington, and correspondingly greater role in looking after their own affairs (raising and spending taxes locally).

    Power would switch back to the State/County level and require plenty of citizen participation (almost certainly obligatory) which wouldn’t be a bad thing.

    “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” -George Bernard Shaw

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Miro23 says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.

    Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.

    There are different opinions on this:

    The true foot soldiers of the political and economic program of Xi and Li are the people who have the most power in the current system – the local party leadership. This includes the heads of the 2,862 counties, 333 prefectures and 31 provincial-level divisions (not counting Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Put this group of just roughly 3,200 together, and you have the most important constituency of all for Xi and Li.

    The loyalty and competence of provincial leadership in contemporary China is critical. Many of the key leaders from this group in fact sit on the Central Committee.

    https://thediplomat.com/2013/11/in-china-all-politics-are-getting-more-local/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    In political implemention of policies only - Sun Zhengcai pretty abrupt end of political prospects demonstrates the centralized power is with XJP at the moment. But more importantly, the population is turning into a majority urban population(if it isn't already) and this reduces the amount of population over free land to agitate from.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    "Here’s where I renew my call for a worldwide alliance of nationalists along the lines of the old Comintern, the Communist International. We can call this alliance the Natintern, the Nationalist International. I’m still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable anthem, to be called of course The Nationale."

    We already have a stirring anthem; we just need new lyrics.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAw0Ri4FSdM

    I wonder whether this Billy Bragg (the name itself is humorous) is sincere, or is an anti-Communist parodist. His exaggerated British accent sounds comical (e.g., "comraids"), and his lyrics, with their imperfect scansion, read like a mock on political correctness:

    Stand up, all victims of oppression / For the tyrants fear your might / Don't cling so hard to your possessions [a taunt at John Lennon's "Imagine"?] / For you have nothing if you have no rights / Let racist ignorance be ended ...
    Let no one build walls to divide us / Walls of hatred nor walls of stone [Hear that, Trump?] / Come greet the dawn and stand beside us / We'll live together or we'll die alone ...

    I wonder whether this Billy Bragg (the name itself is humorous) is sincere, or is an anti-Communist parodist. His exaggerated British accent sounds comical (e.g., “comraids”), and his lyrics, with their imperfect scansion, read like a mock on political correctness:

    Sorry, Mark; you’ve got it completely wrong.

    Billy Bragg is his name.

    His “socialist” boilerplate is sincere – Billy takes it (and himself) very seriously. He would be dismayed that someone would think him “an anti-communist parodist”.

    His accent which you find “exaggerated” and “comical” is not “British” but a variety of English. It is the regional accent of working class Londoners known as “cockney”. Listen to a recording of Jeremy Corbyn (Billy would like to see him as Britain’s Prime Minister) and you might hear a muted echo of Billy’s cockney.

    It is the accent which Dick van Dyke (to a cockney “the name itself is humorous”) made such an appalling attempt to mimic in Mary Poppins – which might be why you assumed Billy to be a parodist.

    In Britain, “comraids” is standard pronunciation, and not only among the working classes. “Comrads”, which I believe is the American pronunciation, sounds to the British like a pretentious attempt to make it sound like a “French word”.

    Now, Mark, have another look at the lyrics you quoted at the end of your comment. He’s not taunting Lennon’s “Imagine”. It’s not parody. “A mock on political correctness”? No, he means every word.

    Welcome to modern Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    Thanks, englishmike, for your background information about Billy Bragg. As it happens, yesterday I looked a little further (read his Wikipedia article), learned a little more, and wrote a note about it:

    "Billy Bragg" sound like the kind of alliterative name of a minor character a novelist would come up with, but assuming

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Bragg

    is not an elaborate hoax, Billy Bragg seems to be a real person. This Wikipedia article is mostly uninteresting music-biz details, but has a few interesting nuggets:

    ==QUOTE==
    Bragg released the album William Bloke in 1996 ... (its title a pun on the name of 18th-century English poet William Blake). [Haha!]


    A developing interest in English national identity, driven by the rise of the BNP and his own move from London to rural Dorset in 1999, informed his 2002 album England, Half English (whose single, "Take Down The Union Jack" put him back on Top of the Pops in the Queen's Golden Jubilee year[36]) and his 2006 book The Progressive Patriot. The book expressed his view that English socialists can reclaim patriotism from the right wing. He draws on Victorian poet Rudyard Kipling for an inclusive sense of Englishness. [Sounds kinda white-nationalist to me.]


    In 2009, Bragg was invited by London's South Bank to write new lyrics for "Ode to Joy", the final movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony (original libretto by Friedrich Schiller), since adopted as an international anthem of unity [the EU's "transnational anthem", isn't it?]. The London Philharmonic Orchestra performed it at the Royal Festival Hall in front of the Queen and Bragg met her afterwards to earn "brownie points" with his mother, also in attendance.


    Bragg has been an opponent of fascism, racism, bigotry, sexism and homophobia, and is a supporter of a multi-racial Britain. As a result, he has conflicted with far-right groups such as the British National Party (BNP).
    ==UNQUOTE==

    P.S. Is Billy Bragg a crypto-Trumpist? Consider the murophilic lyrics of

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0EOVt9WzJk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @MBlanc46
    Probably not the best venue for Enoch Powell bashing.

    43. Numinous:

    Enoch Powell was a hypocrite. He was an imperialist and wanted to be Viceroy of India. Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood. To him it was always “nationalism for me but not for thee.”

    64. MBlanc46:

    Probably not the best venue for Enoch Powell bashing.

    Especially not if the bashing utilises “a style in which it is impossible to tell the truth”.

    Powell’s own preferred discourse attempted to explore and analyse political issues in order to clarify the subtleties and complexities of the arguments. Whether or not you agreed with his conclusions, his approach usually helped his opponents as well as his supporters to a better understanding.

    This approach was evident not only in written articles and public speeches but also in unscripted, exploratory discussions such as the BBC Radio panel discussion from which this extract comes:

    …it depends indeed on whether the immigrants are different, and different in important respects from the existing population. Clearly, if they are identical, then no change for the good or bad can be brought about by the immigration. But if they are different, and to the extent that they are different, then numbers clearly are of the essence and this is not wholly – or mainly, necessarily – a matter of colour. For example, if the immigrants were Germans or Russians, their colour would be approximately the same as ours, but the problems which would be created and the change which could be brought about by a large introduction of a bloc of Germans or Russians into five areas in this country would be as serious – and in some respects more serious – than could follow from an introduction of a similar number of West Indians or Pakistanis.

    Any Questions?, BBC Radio (29 November 1968), from Reflections of a Statesman. The Writings and Speeches of Enoch Powell (London: Bellew, 1991), p. 395.

    This is a contrast with mere name-calling such as: “hypocrite”, “imperialist”, “a demagogue braying about rivers of blood”. It also disposes of the disingenuous rhetoric of

    Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood.

    There was never any reason to suppose that Powell objected to “a few workers”, whatever their colour or “race”. “Numbers were of the essence” because he was concerned about the effects if the few were to multiply into a trend of mass immigration which would create “serious problems” for the nation.

    This was not because he had a crystal ball which could predict terrorism and riots on the streets of London and elsewhere. It was partly based on the contemporary realities of “unrest” in the US and the prospect that Britain could create for itself a repetition of the same problems.

    You can still argue that such fears were exaggerated and possibly hypocritical. But as “MBlanc46″ implies, Unz Review is not the place to do it using blunt instruments.

    And speaking of blunt instruments, would “Numinous” concede that Powell never actually said “nationalism for me but not for thee”, or anything like it?

    Read More
    • Agree: MBlanc46
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Miro23

    Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.
     
    There are different opinions on this:

    The true foot soldiers of the political and economic program of Xi and Li are the people who have the most power in the current system – the local party leadership. This includes the heads of the 2,862 counties, 333 prefectures and 31 provincial-level divisions (not counting Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Put this group of just roughly 3,200 together, and you have the most important constituency of all for Xi and Li.

    The loyalty and competence of provincial leadership in contemporary China is critical. Many of the key leaders from this group in fact sit on the Central Committee.

    https://thediplomat.com/2013/11/in-china-all-politics-are-getting-more-local/

     

    In political implemention of policies only – Sun Zhengcai pretty abrupt end of political prospects demonstrates the centralized power is with XJP at the moment. But more importantly, the population is turning into a majority urban population(if it isn’t already) and this reduces the amount of population over free land to agitate from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. MarkinLA says:

    People are saying that the Civil War has determined once and for all that Texas cannot secede. I think Texas is unique in that it went into the union with a specific guarantee that it could secede if it so chose. Of course, the US government would consider it illegal.

    That would be the same US government under Clinton who decided that any region of ANOTHER country could declare their independence provided the local government voted as such and there was a popular referendum. Unfortunately for the people of Crimea, the Obama decided that it only applied to Kosovo since it weakened one of Russia’s traditional allies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. Hrw-500 says:

    Besides New England, California and Texas, let’s not forget Alaska, Porto Rico and Cascadia, once referred as Ecotopia in Joel Garreau’s book “The Nine Nations of North America” on what was known as Oregon Territory.

    http://cascadia.wikia.com/wiki/Cascadia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)

    A secession of New England inspired once lots of ideas for various alternate history scenarios and others uchronias.

    https://www.alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/

    http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:New_England_Secession

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    We should throw Puerto Rico out on their ass before they can finish preparing their always-threatened secession.

    Help them through recovery from this natural disaster, offer a favorable trade deal, forgive their debts to the US taxpayers, and push them out. GO. PLEASE.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Johann says:
    @Hibernian
    "...— with the rest of Britain not far behind..."

    Ireland was English ruled for centuries, and part of the United Kingdom for about a century and a quarter (Six counties still are.), but it was never part of Britain. Hibernia and Brittania are two separate islands, a fact of geography apart fron politics, culture, etc.

    It is interesting to note that when Ireland finally won its independence in 1921 there was the Irish civil War which caused more brutality and slaughter than the war against the Brits. The Irish were vicious to the Irish on the other side of the civil war( similar to Americans during their Civil War although the Americans surpassed in the number of casualties of the enemy). There is a great scene in the film Michael Collins which had Liam Neeson play Collins where Alan Rickman portraying DeValera leader of the hard core IRA giving the famous “wading through rivers of Irish blood” speech. Yet after centuries of bloodcurdling warfare the Irish gave it all up for a few agricultural subsidies from the EU.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    EU membership links Ireland with Catholic Spain, Portugal, and Italy, nominally Catholic France, and Germany which although majority Protestant has a large Catholic minority. This is a tentative partial explanation, not an endorsement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. songbird says:
    @Numinous
    Enoch Powell was a hypocrite. He was an imperialist and wanted to be Viceroy of India. Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood. To him it was always "nationalism for me but not for thee."

    I very much doubt the topline percentage of Europeans in India ever even cracked 0.1%. Europeans were never realistically going to replace Indians in India and become the majority. The normal historical dynamic for colonization by Europeans in the long term is to dramatically increase the native population, this even true, overall, for the Americas, if you count copies of genes.

    Countless white cities have been transformed into non-white cities I don’t think there is a single example of the reverse happening.

    In a 2011, 60% (n=1000) of Jamaicans surveyed said that they thought independence was a mistake. Only 17% disagreed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. songbird says:
    @Corvinus
    "Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades."

    In all likelihood, southern plantation owners would have kept their slaves for decades. Exactly why the moral scourge required eradication.

    "Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    Regarding Mr. Derbyshire's inquire "If Catalonia, why not California, or Texas, or New England?", there is a simple response--American secession is illegal.

    Regarding Mr. Derbyshire who says "Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them", well, Americans are mutts. We always have been and always will be. We intermixed racially and ethically. As a NATION, we share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation."

    No. It's called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Do you think there is but only a specific way to protest?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. c matt says:
    @Randal

    And there’s no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states.
     
    But is there any reason to expect it necessarily to continue, given that it appears to be an aggregate function of a number of different processes, some of which are no longer in force, some of which are countervailing and might well become more dominant in future?

    It certainly isn't just a function of the world becoming more peaceful and therefore smaller states being more viable - after all the process you describe began before the two world wars. The breakup of the big continental European empires is a different process from the later breakup of the colonial overseas empires, which again is a different process from the collapse of the Soviet empire or of Yugoslavia. They all have in common that they represent the loss of central authority over sub-nations, but they all result from different causes.

    Then you have the much vaunted general loss of real sovereignty in the modern globalised world. Many of the newly "independent" entities probably have less freedom of action than many vassals of the Holy Roman Empire. And you have the rise of the EU. How genuinely sovereign will the constituent nations be as the EU develops further towards a United States of Europe?

    For all the effort expended, there are few real examples of the long established nations of Europe fragmenting other than as the result of military defeat. Scotland, Wales, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Lombardy, etc, are all still part of the larger states of which they are sub-nations.

    Well, it does seem to be a natural cycle of civilizations. The only thing that I would expect to continue is the cycle (uniting, dividing, uniting, ad finitis). Seems the cycle follows the financial fortunes – nation has financial success, expands to empire, over-extends, collapses back to nation. The difficulty is determining the exact demarcation between nation and empire, and if the collapse not only removes the empiric fat, but takes a bit of the national meat and bone with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Hibernian says:
    @Corvinus
    "Is America a nation?"

    Absolutely.

    "Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common."

    Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    Language and culture. Two out of three isn’t too bad. Meet the new Michael Savage, Corvinus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Hibernian says:
    @Johann
    It is interesting to note that when Ireland finally won its independence in 1921 there was the Irish civil War which caused more brutality and slaughter than the war against the Brits. The Irish were vicious to the Irish on the other side of the civil war( similar to Americans during their Civil War although the Americans surpassed in the number of casualties of the enemy). There is a great scene in the film Michael Collins which had Liam Neeson play Collins where Alan Rickman portraying DeValera leader of the hard core IRA giving the famous "wading through rivers of Irish blood" speech. Yet after centuries of bloodcurdling warfare the Irish gave it all up for a few agricultural subsidies from the EU.

    EU membership links Ireland with Catholic Spain, Portugal, and Italy, nominally Catholic France, and Germany which although majority Protestant has a large Catholic minority. This is a tentative partial explanation, not an endorsement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Germany does NOT have a "Protestant majority."

    Nor is Germany either Protestant or Catholic in any meaningful sense.

    Germany is no longer a Christian country; almost nobody non-elderly attends church there even occasionally or on holidays, whether Protestant or Catholic or otherwise, and that has been the case for some time already.

    Nobody cares about the Catholic/Protestant distinction because nobody cares about Christianity (in fact, they don't care about the very propagation of their own families and their nation, so their rejection of Christianity is just part of their general self-hatred, nihilism, cowardice, moral confusion, and malaise).

    Many sources list Protestants and Catholics at only about a third of the population of Germany each -- and I think that is very generous -- with non-religious/unaffiliated/agnostic/atheist approaching thirty percent and the Muslims coming on fast from a smaller base.

    At least five percent of Germany is Muslim, and that number will QUADRUPLE in the next generation as the heavily Muslim generation now under the age of five comes of age and has its own children (another normal human endeavor, sacrifice, and joy that most Germans have no interest in anymore).

    , @Johann
    It is hard to believe that Ireland of 2017 AD is a Catholic country. From my sources Ireland has jettisoned its Catholic Faith eagerly. There are more practicing Catholics in Northern Ireland UK than in the so called Republic, ironically so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Corvinus says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    Well, if you wanna be that way, let's play REAL argument -- prove your major premiss.

    Slavery is a moral scourge.
     
    Then prove your minor premiss.

    Moral scourges need to be eradicated.
     
    Your formal logic is adequate as form, but prove those premises. I'm easy. Then prove that the moral scourge of slavery is specifically required to be eradicated in 1861, versus 1761 or any other previous year.

    Southern slave owners, as well as northern business owners, would have employed slaves rather than imported foreigners to do the backbreaking labor. Then, your ancestors would likely not come to America, and that would have been an absolute shame.
     
    Nope. Industrialization made slavery as instituted in the Confederacy non-competitive from a business-profitabiliy standpoint. I don't fetch links to prove well-known facts, but feel free to google and read about it.

    My maternal-line ancestor, Edward Colborne, arrived in Boston on the English ship Defence on October 8, 1635. He subsequently was one of the founders of Dracut, Massachusetts.

    My paternal line ancestor, Andrew, was one of three brothers who settled in Staunton, VA in 1732.

    I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War.

    Touche on the Jews. ;-)

    “Then prove your minor premiss.”

    An inability for a person to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and works without remuneration is immoral. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

    “Then prove that the moral scourge of slavery is specifically required to be eradicated in 1861, versus 1761 or any other previous year.”

    The moral scourge of slavery ought to have been eradicated at ANY and ALL times. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

    “Nope. Industrialization made slavery as instituted in the Confederacy non-competitive from a business-profitabiliy standpoint. I don’t fetch links to prove well-known facts, but feel free to google and read about it.”

    Not necessarily.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/economic-impact-slavery-south

    “My maternal-line ancestor, Edward Colborne, arrived in Boston on the English ship Defence on October 8, 1635. He subsequently was one of the founders of Dracut, Massachusetts. My paternal line ancestor, Andrew, was one of three brothers who settled in Staunton, VA in 1732.”

    You could be telling the truth here.

    “I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War.”

    Yes, spare us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    An inability for a person to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and works without remuneration is immoral. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?
     
    That is a statement of opinion, not fact. Moral codes are societal and subjective. They cannot be proven by syllogism. I was just checking -- don't be offended, but you should have known that.

    The moral scourge of slavery ought to have been eradicated at ANY and ALL times. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?
     
    "Slavery" is a moral-alarm word. There is no difference between slavery-as-bondage and the wage-slavery inflicted throughout the world. You will find people in China, for instance, working and existing under conditions far more cruel than our antebellum southland.

    Yes, I am aware that the banner of moral outrage rises reflexively, but give it a rest now and then. The current state of Humanity is an economic problem, not a moral problem.

    “I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War.”

    Yes, spare us.
     
    Hey pal, you disparaged and I countered. Deal with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Corvinus says:
    @Miro23

    First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being “valuable” and as “property”; in other words, “gimmedats”. .......Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights.
     
    How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously wrong but it doesn't automatically mean that the SJW trope "slaves were generally abused by their masters" is true.

    Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else’s fields.
     
    I never said that. I was talking about modern day, "free market" hard minimum wage work for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery.

    “Second, it’s a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities.”

    IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.
     

    Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    “However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one’s own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents…”

    Why are you so obsessed with Jews?
     

    I know that it's taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism).

    The true obsession is US media concern with hiding the fact.

    “How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously wrong but it doesn’t automatically mean that the SJW trope “slaves were generally abused by their masters” is true.”

    “I never said that. I was talking about modern day, “free market” hard minimum wage work for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery.”

    Again, how would you feel if your family was ripped from their homeland and forced to serve someone without compensation?

    “Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.”

    There are several instances today of slavery. Please educate yourself.

    http://www.alliesagainstslavery.org/slavery/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIje7jg4Tl1gIVGrnACh1kDwcoEAAYASAAEgITE_D_BwE

    Furthermore, you ASSUME that biological differences between people leads to those groups of people being other than able to to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    “I know that it’s taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism).”

    So, how much influence ought they have? What is the magic number here? Why are some whites obsessed with their supposed disparate impact on American government and culture? Are white people today really being bamboozled by Jews?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    If I say A and you insist on saying that I said B, then you're either a lazy reader, stupid or a propagandist.

    How can my statement A be your statement B?

    Miro23: A

    The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.
     

    Corvinus: B

    Furthermore, you ASSUME that biological differences between people leads to those groups of people being other than able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.
     
    I said "... able to work together" and you insist that I said "... other than being able to work together"
    , @Carroll Price
    Other than Africa, where it's existed since the dawn of recorded history, and still exist today, slavery has existed no where else for more than 140 years. With that being the case, why the preoccupation with slavery?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Corvinus says:
    @songbird
    When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation.

    “When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation.”

    No. It’s called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Do you think there is but only a specific way to protest?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    “When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation.”

    No. It’s called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Do you think there is but only a specific way to protest?

     

    Uh, no. When people get together to watch a ball game, that is freedom of assembly (which, despite its assertion in the Constitution, is itself heavily and oppressively regulated).

    Kneeling for the anthem is simply freedom of individual action that does not cause harm to other citizens. While our loosely-defined "country" sidles toward fascism at the urging of the wealthy and powerful, we do not -- yet -- demand standing for bullshit like flag displays and anthems. Yet.
    , @RadicalCenter
    It is indeed freedom of assembly and speech. And the way they are choosing to exercise those freedoms is to send a message of hatred against white people and against America. There are several nations within this country, and sadly, they probably cannot coexist forever.
    , @songbird
    What their rights are or are not isn't the issue. It is the message that they are sending. What they are doing is incredibly dumb, but they don't realize it.

    What they are saying is "Yeah, we live in America, the most prosperous country in the world. Where blacks make about 21x the income of the most prosperous country in black Africa. We all won the lottery, not just by being born in America but by being football stars. Yeah, white guys are more likely to be killed by cops. Yeah, the death by cop rate is the lowest it's ever been, and most the guys killed are criminal punks who don't act normally. None of that stuff matters in the slightest. We will never be happy until our group is fully equal to yours in all things except sports."

    Of course, they don't make any of those acknowledgements. But the discord that comes from them being different is real and trillions of dollars have been poured into it to no effect. It is a completely intractable problem. And after all those trillions they are not even willing to stand, so I think most people will come to realize there's no point in giving them anything. You cannot even buy their loyalty. We are not the same country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Corvinus says:
    @MBlanc46
    Your grasp of the realities of the slave trade is weak indeed. Those who “stripped” the homeland and identity from the African slaves were the Africans who kidnapped them (or enslaved them by judicial process) and then sold them to European and Arab slave traders. The European and Arab slave traders (and those who bought the slaves from them) are not without serious fault, but they were simply availing themselves of a trade that had existed for centuries.

    “Your grasp of the realities of the slave trade is weak indeed. Those who “stripped” the homeland and identity from the African slaves were the Africans who kidnapped them (or enslaved them by judicial process) and then sold them to European and Arab slave traders.”

    Indeed, there is culpability on the part of African tribal groups who sold captives or prisoners of war–their enemies–to Europeans. However, this demand for black labor was generated by Europeans themselves to make a quick buck. Eventually, those tribes who procured slaves for Europeans became targets for enslavement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    They weren’t forced to meet the demand for slaves. And if they were later enslaved themselves, it was by other Africans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Dust says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    It’s in the northeastern corner of Spain, actually.
     
    In that case, which corner is the Basque country around Bilbao and San Sebastian? Maybe that is not a corner at all. Spain seems to have 2 north east corners, but you might want to call the Barcelona corner the south east corner as it sits on the Mediterranean facing of the Iberian peninsula, rather than the Atlantic coast or Bay of Biscay.

    In any case, if you really want to nit pick, Barcelona is below the corner formed by the Mediterranean and the French frontier and faces towards the Balearics.

    And are Almeria and Gibraltar and Huelva located at corners, and what are they called?

    Spain is actually shaped like the tilted head of a bull, with the two horns extending over Portugal and below France, so it has a lots of angles and corners and is not as square or rhomboidal as one might think.

    Who’s on first?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Jonathan Mason
    I don't see any good reason why Texas should not have independence if the people who live there want it. It is bigger than many independent nations like Lithuania or Moldovia that were once parts of the USSR.

    If even tiny places like St. Kitts and Nevis can be independent nations, why shouldn't constituent United States disunite if they want to, or form new groups of United States? The constituent states of the US at present time are growing so that they all look the same, so I would like to see more diversity of lifestyles.

    So long as the people there express a strong preference for secession on a sustained basis. Something like a 2/3 or 3/4 vote in two elections, two or three years apart.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Miro23

    I’m currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.
     
    You wouldn't win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:

    Tenth Amendment

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
     

    So go back to the original idea, and mostly RAISE TAXES LOCALLY AND SPEND THEM LOCALLY. Combine this with the removal of the Washington/FED right to create credit and the removal of most Presidential powers and that's the end of Washington.

    And BTW you could also change the name of the "United States" to the "Confederation of American States" or "American Confederation" in recognition of the fact that states don' t have to be united, but could still respect each other's decisions and differences of opinion.

    Let Texas be Texas and California be California.

    It's also a useful way to stop foreign military adventures, since local voters would have to discuss the issue beforehand, budget for the expense and raise a special tax.

    Superb.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Miro23 says:
    @Corvinus
    "How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously wrong but it doesn’t automatically mean that the SJW trope “slaves were generally abused by their masters” is true."

    "I never said that. I was talking about modern day, “free market” hard minimum wage work for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery."

    Again, how would you feel if your family was ripped from their homeland and forced to serve someone without compensation?

    "Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations."

    There are several instances today of slavery. Please educate yourself.

    http://www.alliesagainstslavery.org/slavery/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIje7jg4Tl1gIVGrnACh1kDwcoEAAYASAAEgITE_D_BwE

    Furthermore, you ASSUME that biological differences between people leads to those groups of people being other than able to to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    "I know that it’s taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism)."

    So, how much influence ought they have? What is the magic number here? Why are some whites obsessed with their supposed disparate impact on American government and culture? Are white people today really being bamboozled by Jews?

    If I say A and you insist on saying that I said B, then you’re either a lazy reader, stupid or a propagandist.

    How can my statement A be your statement B?

    Miro23: A

    The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    Corvinus: B

    Furthermore, you ASSUME that biological differences between people leads to those groups of people being other than able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    I said “… able to work together” and you insist that I said “… other than being able to work together”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @englishmike

    I wonder whether this Billy Bragg (the name itself is humorous) is sincere, or is an anti-Communist parodist. His exaggerated British accent sounds comical (e.g., “comraids”), and his lyrics, with their imperfect scansion, read like a mock on political correctness:

     

    Sorry, Mark; you've got it completely wrong.

    Billy Bragg is his name.

    His "socialist" boilerplate is sincere - Billy takes it (and himself) very seriously. He would be dismayed that someone would think him "an anti-communist parodist".

    His accent which you find "exaggerated" and "comical" is not "British" but a variety of English. It is the regional accent of working class Londoners known as "cockney". Listen to a recording of Jeremy Corbyn (Billy would like to see him as Britain's Prime Minister) and you might hear a muted echo of Billy's cockney.

    It is the accent which Dick van Dyke (to a cockney "the name itself is humorous") made such an appalling attempt to mimic in Mary Poppins - which might be why you assumed Billy to be a parodist.

    In Britain, "comraids" is standard pronunciation, and not only among the working classes. "Comrads", which I believe is the American pronunciation, sounds to the British like a pretentious attempt to make it sound like a "French word".

    Now, Mark, have another look at the lyrics you quoted at the end of your comment. He's not taunting Lennon's "Imagine". It's not parody. "A mock on political correctness"? No, he means every word.

    Welcome to modern Britain.

    Thanks, englishmike, for your background information about Billy Bragg. As it happens, yesterday I looked a little further (read his Wikipedia article), learned a little more, and wrote a note about it:

    “Billy Bragg” sound like the kind of alliterative name of a minor character a novelist would come up with, but assuming

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Bragg

    is not an elaborate hoax, Billy Bragg seems to be a real person. This Wikipedia article is mostly uninteresting music-biz details, but has a few interesting nuggets:

    ==QUOTE==
    Bragg released the album William Bloke in 1996 … (its title a pun on the name of 18th-century English poet William Blake). [Haha!]

    A developing interest in English national identity, driven by the rise of the BNP and his own move from London to rural Dorset in 1999, informed his 2002 album England, Half English (whose single, “Take Down The Union Jack” put him back on Top of the Pops in the Queen’s Golden Jubilee year[36]) and his 2006 book The Progressive Patriot. The book expressed his view that English socialists can reclaim patriotism from the right wing. He draws on Victorian poet Rudyard Kipling for an inclusive sense of Englishness. [Sounds kinda white-nationalist to me.]

    In 2009, Bragg was invited by London’s South Bank to write new lyrics for “Ode to Joy”, the final movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony (original libretto by Friedrich Schiller), since adopted as an international anthem of unity [the EU's "transnational anthem", isn't it?]. The London Philharmonic Orchestra performed it at the Royal Festival Hall in front of the Queen and Bragg met her afterwards to earn “brownie points” with his mother, also in attendance.

    Bragg has been an opponent of fascism, racism, bigotry, sexism and homophobia, and is a supporter of a multi-racial Britain. As a result, he has conflicted with far-right groups such as the British National Party (BNP).
    ==UNQUOTE==

    P.S. Is Billy Bragg a crypto-Trumpist? Consider the murophilic lyrics of

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Corvinus
    "Then prove your minor premiss."

    An inability for a person to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and works without remuneration is immoral. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

    "Then prove that the moral scourge of slavery is specifically required to be eradicated in 1861, versus 1761 or any other previous year."

    The moral scourge of slavery ought to have been eradicated at ANY and ALL times. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

    "Nope. Industrialization made slavery as instituted in the Confederacy non-competitive from a business-profitabiliy standpoint. I don’t fetch links to prove well-known facts, but feel free to google and read about it."

    Not necessarily.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/economic-impact-slavery-south

    "My maternal-line ancestor, Edward Colborne, arrived in Boston on the English ship Defence on October 8, 1635. He subsequently was one of the founders of Dracut, Massachusetts. My paternal line ancestor, Andrew, was one of three brothers who settled in Staunton, VA in 1732."

    You could be telling the truth here.

    "I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War."

    Yes, spare us.

    An inability for a person to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and works without remuneration is immoral. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

    That is a statement of opinion, not fact. Moral codes are societal and subjective. They cannot be proven by syllogism. I was just checking — don’t be offended, but you should have known that.

    The moral scourge of slavery ought to have been eradicated at ANY and ALL times. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

    “Slavery” is a moral-alarm word. There is no difference between slavery-as-bondage and the wage-slavery inflicted throughout the world. You will find people in China, for instance, working and existing under conditions far more cruel than our antebellum southland.

    Yes, I am aware that the banner of moral outrage rises reflexively, but give it a rest now and then. The current state of Humanity is an economic problem, not a moral problem.

    “I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War.”

    Yes, spare us.

    Hey pal, you disparaged and I countered. Deal with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "That is a statement of opinion, not fact. Moral codes are societal and subjective."

    Wow, just wow. We have a moral relativist on our hands. How SJW of you. Of course it is a fact that it is immoral when a person is unable to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and who works without renumeration. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in. Refer to Jesus calling of "love thy neighbor as thyself". Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies. Furthermore, a number of people have attempted to invent their own morality and then impose it--Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind. Are you saying that the moral codes they imposed are subjective in nature and thus the citizens of their nations had to "take it good and hard", that there was no recourse of action to take against their brutality?

    'They cannot be proven by syllogism. I was just checking — don’t be offended, but you should have known that."

    Moral relativists claim there are no absolute moral standards.
    But "all moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.
    To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
    Thus, the claim that "all moral standards are relative" is illogical.

    "“Slavery” is a moral-alarm word. There is no difference between slavery-as-bondage and the wage-slavery inflicted throughout the world."

    Of course there is a difference. In "slavery-as-bondage", a person has NO freedom to leave their situation, as it is perpetual. The slave is punished for engaging in collective actions to improve their condition, such as demand improvements in their housing arrangements. In "wage-slavery", the worker is free to leave their situation or engage in collective actions to improve their condition, such as strike.

    "You will find people in China, for instance, working and existing under conditions far more cruel than our antebellum southland."

    Did you not say that moral codes are societal and subjective? Thus, your comparison regarding whether one labor system is more cruel than another labor system is effectively neutered.

    "Yes, I am aware that the banner of moral outrage rises reflexively, but give it a rest now and then. The current state of Humanity is an economic problem, not a moral problem."

    The current state of humanity is decidedly a moral issue, which is manifested by conflicting political, economic, and social ideologies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Corvinus
    "When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation."

    No. It's called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Do you think there is but only a specific way to protest?

    “When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation.”

    No. It’s called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Do you think there is but only a specific way to protest?

    Uh, no. When people get together to watch a ball game, that is freedom of assembly (which, despite its assertion in the Constitution, is itself heavily and oppressively regulated).

    Kneeling for the anthem is simply freedom of individual action that does not cause harm to other citizens. While our loosely-defined “country” sidles toward fascism at the urging of the wealthy and powerful, we do not — yet — demand standing for bullshit like flag displays and anthems. Yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @MBlanc46
    Less and less a common language.

    Mblanc, you’re entirely correct, unfortunately. English is being supplemented, and gradually supplanted, by Spanish, and it’s not just in our biggest cities. Not at all.

    Here in southern California, we can drive twenty or fifty or even eighty miles away from LA and still sometimes have a hard time finding people who speak/understand English well enough to make small talk, understand a simple joke, get to know each other even at a basic level, etc. We have had this experience regularly in Riverside, San Bernardino, and to a lesser extent in Bakersfield, all pretty far from LA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Spanish is a wonderful language we should all learn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Ghost says:

    I’ve recently changed my mind about secession of Cali from the union.

    I think Cali should secede and provide a good example of how it’s done.

    There hasn’t been a secession in a long time and I’d like one to occur in order to get on the road to a new North American Confederation in which free people in free states confer all state power on themselves (keeping only a very small number of state workers), just like things were before the Confederation was stolen from the original states and the US constitution was imposed.

    So please, Californians, provide us an example of how you think secession should be done. I’m eager to learn. I’m serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    So please, Californians, provide us an example of how you think secession should be done. I’m eager to learn. I’m serious.
     
    By all means, let them secede. What worries me is that I suspect USA "foreign aid" to the newly independent sovereign state of Mexifornia will be as large as our "defense" budget.
    , @RadicalCenter
    I'm starting to wonder whether you are right, Ghost. Sad as it would be to me an American -- and as a California resident who is having a blast here despite the expense and hassles -- California secession might benefit the USA on balance.

    An independent California -- without the slightly moderating effect of the other States -- will completely ban private gun ownership (with a concomitant increase in violent crime and property crime) and increase both spending and taxes at a higher rate than they have been doing. All in fairly short order.

    On top of the higher taxes and the helplessness of not being "allowed" to defend oneself with a gun, add another factor that would push many of the remaining white people to flee CA: racial violence targeting whites and tolerated / ignored by the police on a regular basis (we already saw this happening to Trump supporters at rallies in CA and elsewhere last year, and it can explode into a South Africa-type situation without the rest of the country holding CA's angry & constantly-propagandized anti-white majority back).

    For a while, California may "make it work", in budgetary terms, by scrimping on its national defense in order to pay for its endless government-program wish list. I'll bet they would spend almost nothing on defense. Eventually that would attract the unwelcome attentions of China or some other major power.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Ghost
    I've recently changed my mind about secession of Cali from the union.

    I think Cali should secede and provide a good example of how it's done.

    There hasn't been a secession in a long time and I'd like one to occur in order to get on the road to a new North American Confederation in which free people in free states confer all state power on themselves (keeping only a very small number of state workers), just like things were before the Confederation was stolen from the original states and the US constitution was imposed.

    So please, Californians, provide us an example of how you think secession should be done. I'm eager to learn. I'm serious.

    So please, Californians, provide us an example of how you think secession should be done. I’m eager to learn. I’m serious.

    By all means, let them secede. What worries me is that I suspect USA “foreign aid” to the newly independent sovereign state of Mexifornia will be as large as our “defense” budget.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Ghost
    I've recently changed my mind about secession of Cali from the union.

    I think Cali should secede and provide a good example of how it's done.

    There hasn't been a secession in a long time and I'd like one to occur in order to get on the road to a new North American Confederation in which free people in free states confer all state power on themselves (keeping only a very small number of state workers), just like things were before the Confederation was stolen from the original states and the US constitution was imposed.

    So please, Californians, provide us an example of how you think secession should be done. I'm eager to learn. I'm serious.

    I’m starting to wonder whether you are right, Ghost. Sad as it would be to me an American — and as a California resident who is having a blast here despite the expense and hassles — California secession might benefit the USA on balance.

    An independent California — without the slightly moderating effect of the other States — will completely ban private gun ownership (with a concomitant increase in violent crime and property crime) and increase both spending and taxes at a higher rate than they have been doing. All in fairly short order.

    On top of the higher taxes and the helplessness of not being “allowed” to defend oneself with a gun, add another factor that would push many of the remaining white people to flee CA: racial violence targeting whites and tolerated / ignored by the police on a regular basis (we already saw this happening to Trump supporters at rallies in CA and elsewhere last year, and it can explode into a South Africa-type situation without the rest of the country holding CA’s angry & constantly-propagandized anti-white majority back).

    For a while, California may “make it work”, in budgetary terms, by scrimping on its national defense in order to pay for its endless government-program wish list. I’ll bet they would spend almost nothing on defense. Eventually that would attract the unwelcome attentions of China or some other major power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eric Novak
    Californians won't be keeping 1/4 of its current territory. Nat'l Forests, Nat'l Parks, US Dept. of Defense land, Nat'l Seashores, Nat'l Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, etc., etc, all belong to the US Federal Gov't and will remain the property of the 49 states.
    , @Carroll Price
    If the San Andres Fault were to open and separate California from the mainland, would it not then become a foreign nation by default?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. P.S. If California secedes, buy property in neighboring States. You’ll be able to sell to the refugees fleeing Independent California’s widespread anti-white violence, hypertaxation, and perhaps hyperinflation (as Cali will need its own currency).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. @Hrw-500
    Besides New England, California and Texas, let's not forget Alaska, Porto Rico and Cascadia, once referred as Ecotopia in Joel Garreau's book "The Nine Nations of North America" on what was known as Oregon Territory.
    http://cascadia.wikia.com/wiki/Cascadia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)

    A secession of New England inspired once lots of ideas for various alternate history scenarios and others uchronias.
    https://www.alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
    http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:New_England_Secession

    We should throw Puerto Rico out on their ass before they can finish preparing their always-threatened secession.

    Help them through recovery from this natural disaster, offer a favorable trade deal, forgive their debts to the US taxpayers, and push them out. GO. PLEASE.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Hibernian
    EU membership links Ireland with Catholic Spain, Portugal, and Italy, nominally Catholic France, and Germany which although majority Protestant has a large Catholic minority. This is a tentative partial explanation, not an endorsement.

    Germany does NOT have a “Protestant majority.”

    Nor is Germany either Protestant or Catholic in any meaningful sense.

    Germany is no longer a Christian country; almost nobody non-elderly attends church there even occasionally or on holidays, whether Protestant or Catholic or otherwise, and that has been the case for some time already.

    Nobody cares about the Catholic/Protestant distinction because nobody cares about Christianity (in fact, they don’t care about the very propagation of their own families and their nation, so their rejection of Christianity is just part of their general self-hatred, nihilism, cowardice, moral confusion, and malaise).

    Many sources list Protestants and Catholics at only about a third of the population of Germany each — and I think that is very generous — with non-religious/unaffiliated/agnostic/atheist approaching thirty percent and the Muslims coming on fast from a smaller base.

    At least five percent of Germany is Muslim, and that number will QUADRUPLE in the next generation as the heavily Muslim generation now under the age of five comes of age and has its own children (another normal human endeavor, sacrifice, and joy that most Germans have no interest in anymore).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Corvinus
    "When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation."

    No. It's called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Do you think there is but only a specific way to protest?

    It is indeed freedom of assembly and speech. And the way they are choosing to exercise those freedoms is to send a message of hatred against white people and against America. There are several nations within this country, and sadly, they probably cannot coexist forever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "And the way they are choosing to exercise those freedoms is to send a message of hatred against white people and against America."

    No, it is sending a message of hatred against perceived injustices within America. No different than when the Alt Right protests.

    "There are several nations within this country, and sadly, they probably cannot coexist forever."

    No, there are several groups of people within our nation. There have been long-standing issues, and perhaps, we cannot coexist. But the millennials will certainly have a say in race related matters.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/06/28/diversity-defines-the-millennial-generation/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    It is indeed freedom of assembly and speech. And the way they are choosing to exercise those freedoms is to send a message of hatred against white people and against America. There are several nations within this country, and sadly, they probably cannot coexist forever.

    “And the way they are choosing to exercise those freedoms is to send a message of hatred against white people and against America.”

    No, it is sending a message of hatred against perceived injustices within America. No different than when the Alt Right protests.

    “There are several nations within this country, and sadly, they probably cannot coexist forever.”

    No, there are several groups of people within our nation. There have been long-standing issues, and perhaps, we cannot coexist. But the millennials will certainly have a say in race related matters.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/06/28/diversity-defines-the-millennial-generation/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Anatoly Karlin
    I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.

    But it wasn't always like this. I haven't seen any data on this, but the number of states or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the rise of the great gunpowder empires.

    And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

    The unstoppable March of liberalism has just encountered the unstoppable march of Islam. The pussyhatters versus the jihadists-which do you think has the advantage?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @RadicalCenter
    I'm starting to wonder whether you are right, Ghost. Sad as it would be to me an American -- and as a California resident who is having a blast here despite the expense and hassles -- California secession might benefit the USA on balance.

    An independent California -- without the slightly moderating effect of the other States -- will completely ban private gun ownership (with a concomitant increase in violent crime and property crime) and increase both spending and taxes at a higher rate than they have been doing. All in fairly short order.

    On top of the higher taxes and the helplessness of not being "allowed" to defend oneself with a gun, add another factor that would push many of the remaining white people to flee CA: racial violence targeting whites and tolerated / ignored by the police on a regular basis (we already saw this happening to Trump supporters at rallies in CA and elsewhere last year, and it can explode into a South Africa-type situation without the rest of the country holding CA's angry & constantly-propagandized anti-white majority back).

    For a while, California may "make it work", in budgetary terms, by scrimping on its national defense in order to pay for its endless government-program wish list. I'll bet they would spend almost nothing on defense. Eventually that would attract the unwelcome attentions of China or some other major power.

    Californians won’t be keeping 1/4 of its current territory. Nat’l Forests, Nat’l Parks, US Dept. of Defense land, Nat’l Seashores, Nat’l Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, etc., etc, all belong to the US Federal Gov’t and will remain the property of the 49 states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Perhaps CA should be allowed to keep about a tenth of the federal land within its borders as a compromise, as it has at least a tenth of the country's 350-plus million people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Why not Texas? From my blog:

    Feb 28, 2015 – No Talk of Texas Independence Permitted

    One legacy of our civil war is the Feds have zero tolerance for any talk of state secession. Any group that discusses the subject is investigated, harassed, and often criminally charged. Here is the latest example, that includes this:

    BRYAN, TX — Federal and local police forces raided a political meeting, taking unusual measures to document every attendee by taking fingerprints and photographs, and seizing every cell phone and all recording equipment in the meeting hall.

    The raid took place on February 14, 2015, at VFW Post 4892 in Bryan, Texas. At 10:10 a.m., an “army of policing agencies with flashing emergency lights” showed up, shut down the meeting of “congenial and unimposing” Texans and forced them to hand over their private effects and biometric data.

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/houston-texas/article/Feds-raid-Texas-secessionist-meeting-6096637.php

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    One legacy of our civil war is the Feds have zero tolerance for any talk of state secession. Any group that discusses the subject is investigated, harassed, and often criminally charged. Here is the latest example, that includes this:
     
    White secessionist groups, yes. However Calexit will be justified on anti-racist grounds: the desire of non-white people to escape a white racist union that persecutes them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften
    "If Catalonia, why not California, Texas, or New England?" Don't you know what happened to the South's attempt to secede! Do some homework, writer.

    I’ll Bet you ten thousand dollars derb knows more about the war of northern aggression than you do my an order of magnitude

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. as tempting as it might be to saw california off and let it drift to sea, the USA is the USA because its a geographically impregnable fortress, east and west are vast oceans backed up by mountain ranges, the south is also ocean more or less and desert. the north is the arctic and our cousin vasals. We have most of the world’s arable land fossil fuels ores timber and intelligent people ( though they act pretty stupid usually) and we are halfway between europe and asia and are connected to south america through an isthmus.
    It not only would be retarded to give that up, if it happened it would immediately taken advantage of by enemies, which would trigger an invasion by the other ex spouse to prevent, in fact even if an outsider didnt attempt to interject itself, the other party would eventually seize the opportunity to conquer the ex since there was no longer a USg to stop it. Now admittedly this is all going to happen anyway, the left is obviously on crack and thinks it can take the right, and so is going to save us having to wait for the adult side to finally get fed up. Like most children after a good thrashing the left will feel secure and be relieved to have been stopped from what it could not stop itself

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. Jake says:

    If you want a bloodbath, just work hard to prevent the US from peacefully breaking up, from having the Red States and Blue States secede from one another.

    The Blue States can have the stars and stripes and the name USA, for all I care. But we must wave goodbye, or else the next time they get a shot, they will take it. David Horowitz knows what is inside every Liberal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. Jake says:
    @Truth

    If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, or New England?
     
    Don't quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.

    And we are in this position because the wrong side won. Mr. Lincoln’s war and anti-secession party made Negroes the nation’s sacred cows.

    If that is not undone, the America that survives will be a totalitarian hellhole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    That may, or may not have been the case, but the "wrong" side did win. History cannot be rewritten. And as far a sacred cows, in a country where %13 of the population makes up %50 of the prison population, "sacred" just don't mean what it used to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Span says:

    How tiring is to see Orwell`s book with his ” Homage to Catalonia ” . Orwell joined voluntarily
    communist militias to go to the Spanish Civil War to kill spaniards .

    What homage to a traitor Catalunia ? Catalonia `s rebellion against Spain was the main contributor to the onset of Spanish Civil War in 1936 . a war that produced about 400.000 deaths in both sides . Fortunately Spain did not participated in the two world wars of the ” civilized ” europeans .

    Now Catalonia is trying again , she is commiting high treason again , against Spain and against Europe , because of their identity problems plus an enormous greed and plain bad faith .

    I have never been sure whether Orwell was against the world order that he describes in 1984 , or in favor of it ? ,what do you think ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. Here’s where I renew my call for a worldwide alliance of nationalists along the lines of the old Comintern, the Communist International.

    You call it a call, I call it a howl.

    Yes, because such alliances have a record of working out so well. Because concentrating wealth and power is an historically wise move always.

    Without alliances we, the peasants, have no power. With alliances we have no power.

    Whoever thinks he or she has the answers, please let me know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. New England? Mr. Derbyshire, New England was responsible for the holocaust that was the Civil War. It brought on war by refusing to let the South – which was a viable nation – leave the union in peace, for the most selfish reasons that can be imagined. It then compounded this unforgivable crime by attaching the guilt to the South, inventing a bogus “moral crusade” to justify its action, and then gorged on the corpse of the South for a hundred years. Screw them. I hope they drink the dregs of what they have done to America, and never leave this rotting carcass of a country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. Joe Hide says:

    A fine writing by John Derbyshire.
    The Catalonian separatist movement at its roots derives from the imposition of oppressive, totalitarian, and elitist mandates on the Catalonian people. This oppression comes from psychopaths, narcissists, sociopaths, and insane people in power not only in Spain and the EU, but throughout the world. course, the Catalonians (and we Normal People) should be targeting them instead of some hopeless cause like Catalonian independence. To do this we need to publically identify the ultimate nad guys. This can easily be done with current technology and will be once this identification desire reaches a large enough percentage of our consciousness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. songbird says:
    @Corvinus
    "When people kneel during the national anthem, I think that really belies the idea that we are a nation."

    No. It's called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Do you think there is but only a specific way to protest?

    What their rights are or are not isn’t the issue. It is the message that they are sending. What they are doing is incredibly dumb, but they don’t realize it.

    What they are saying is “Yeah, we live in America, the most prosperous country in the world. Where blacks make about 21x the income of the most prosperous country in black Africa. We all won the lottery, not just by being born in America but by being football stars. Yeah, white guys are more likely to be killed by cops. Yeah, the death by cop rate is the lowest it’s ever been, and most the guys killed are criminal punks who don’t act normally. None of that stuff matters in the slightest. We will never be happy until our group is fully equal to yours in all things except sports.”

    Of course, they don’t make any of those acknowledgements. But the discord that comes from them being different is real and trillions of dollars have been poured into it to no effect. It is a completely intractable problem. And after all those trillions they are not even willing to stand, so I think most people will come to realize there’s no point in giving them anything. You cannot even buy their loyalty. We are not the same country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Why not California, Texas or New England? Maybe, but not on par with Catalonia. European nationalism is ethnic. Each ethnic group is entitled to have its own sovereign nation-state: the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, the Crimean Tatars, the Basques, the Catalans, the Corsicans, the Ukrainians, the Kosovo Albanians, the Czechs, the Slovaks etc. That’s the whole point of the EU: to allow the numerous small nations of Europe to have their own nation-state without either being conquered by more powerful neighbours or slaughtering each other at regular intervals. That’s why the Catalans (like the Scots) are not seeking to leave the EU but simply to become full Member States. Such a concept of nationalism is impossible on the American continent because all the sovereign states are multi-ethnic products of European colonialism. We Europeans, the “original” whites, are the indigenous people of our own territories. We are not the descendants of colonists who invaded other people’s countries and squatted there. Thus, there’s no reason why California, Texas or New England shouldn’t be independent if they want to be but that has nothing to do with the European concepts of nationalism and the nation-state. For all the above reasons, Mr Derbyshire’s idea of a worldwide “nationalist international” is a contradiction in terms. Nationalism means different things in different parts of the world. As Mr D likes to say, that’s why we have different countries! Regional groupings of closely-related ethnic groups, such as the EU, seem to work quite well and the EU has certainly kept the peace and made it feasible for further European ethnic groups to obtain their own nation-states (notwithstanding 45 years of American attempts to destroy it!). But worldwide? Not yet. Maybe in a few centuries, by which time the American continent will be inhabited by Spanish-speaking, mixed race Catholics all of whom will look like Lester Holt!
    By the way, Catalonia is in the north-eastern corner of Spain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike

    European nationalism is ethnic. Each ethnic group is entitled to have its own sovereign nation-state: the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, the Crimean Tatars, the Basques, the Catalans, the Corsicans, the Ukrainians, the Kosovo Albanians, the Czechs, the Slovaks etc.
     
    1. "European nationalism is ethnic".
    That's just your interpretation of the status quo, based on your experience of travelling the towns and cities of the EU with your ears plugged and your eyes closed.

    2. "Each ethnic group is entitled..."
    Again, only in your opinion. In reality, the EU has no authority to offer that "entitlement" and no power to enforce it. It could only be offered by the existing nation-states in which those ethnic groups reside. Few, if any, of those nations would be willing to do so.

    It is already clear that Spain will not allow Catalonia the unilateral right to break up the integrity of the Spanish nation-state. Nor will Britain delegate to Scottish voters a similar right which is properly that of the British nation.

    2. I defend your right as a globalist EU ideologue to to indulge in such ethno-nationalist fantasies.

    3. But which ethnic group would you nominate to occupy the sovereign nation-state of London?

    Hint: so far this year, the most popular name for male babies born in London has been...
    But do I need to tell you? And, no, it is not "Sadiq". He's just the elected City mayor.

    That’s the whole point of the EU: to allow the numerous small nations of Europe to have their own nation-state without either being conquered by more powerful neighbours or slaughtering each other at regular intervals.
     
    The "whole point of the EU" is to progressively weaken the the sovereign nation-state in order to create "an ever-closer union", until you have a supra-national, federal United States of Europe, with a single currency and economic policies, a single foreign policy, a single European military, etc. Probably also an interlocking transnational-security structure to spy on its own citizens, as the US deep state spies on Americans.

    You do know about the "Kalergi Plan", don't you? If so, you will know that its aim was to abolish the ethnicities you pretend to value in exchange for a new melting-pot European race in which all are "people of colour". That's not a "racist" point; it is what Coudenhove-Kalergi explicitly argued for. It has had influential supporters among the EU power elites. But don't expect them to talk about it in public.

    You surely must also have heard of Peter Sutherland's view that the European nations should give up their nationalist "homogeneity" by embracing the mass immigration of "refugees".

    That’s why the Catalans (like the Scots) are not seeking to leave the EU but simply to become full Member States.
     
    No, that's not the reason. It is because they expect to gain more generous subsidies than they receive as small countries or as regions of their existing nation-states. They know the rule is that the richer nations in the EU (Germany, Britain, etc.) pay more to subsidise the poorer ones (Ireland, Romania, etc.), while encouraging people from the poorer regions to migrate to the richer ones (leaving the poorer ones in need of increasing subsidy). That feeling of economic dependence on the super-state is the cement that binds the the nations of Europe, as it does any "socialist" super-state which offers to be generous with other people's earnings.

    Regional groupings of closely-related ethnic groups, such as the EU, seem to work quite well and the EU has certainly kept the peace and made it feasible for further European ethnic groups to obtain their own nation-states...
     
    They "seem to work quite well". Until they don't.

    "The EU has certainly kept the peace...". The EU ideologues have been peddling that myth from the start. If there has been peace in Europe since the creation of the Common Market, it is not because of the EU but because Germany has not attempted to start another war. (And why would they need to, having gained so much from the settlement they won after losing the last war?)

    However, Merkel almost started one with Russia by conspiring with the Obama administration to overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine and try to bring it into NATO and the EU. Apparently they have succeeded, as you seem to have decided, on behalf of the Ukraine, that it is now a "European nationalism".

    ...(notwithstanding 45 years of American attempts to destroy it!).
     
    You've made that claim before, with no evidence to make it credible. The truth is that every US administration from LBJ's to Obama's has been in favour of the "European project"and determined to keep Britain in it. Understandably so, if it means that the US does not again have to sacrifice its own people to defend Europeans in another major war, and if it means that there is a continental "buffer zone" between America and Russia. Why would they feel any need to destroy it?

    Donald Trump is the only president I know of who has ever questioned the pro-EU orthodoxy. But then, another political myth you pretend to believe is that Trump is "in collusion" with Vlad Putin, (the evil wizard of the Russiagate galaxy), and is trying to enforce his nationalism and his dark American First Amendment rights upon the people of Europe, against the wishes of their enlightened leaders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Corvinus says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    An inability for a person to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and works without remuneration is immoral. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?
     
    That is a statement of opinion, not fact. Moral codes are societal and subjective. They cannot be proven by syllogism. I was just checking -- don't be offended, but you should have known that.

    The moral scourge of slavery ought to have been eradicated at ANY and ALL times. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?
     
    "Slavery" is a moral-alarm word. There is no difference between slavery-as-bondage and the wage-slavery inflicted throughout the world. You will find people in China, for instance, working and existing under conditions far more cruel than our antebellum southland.

    Yes, I am aware that the banner of moral outrage rises reflexively, but give it a rest now and then. The current state of Humanity is an economic problem, not a moral problem.

    “I will spare you a recitation of the names of family and extended family who fought in every war this country ever had, including the French and Indian War.”

    Yes, spare us.
     
    Hey pal, you disparaged and I countered. Deal with it.

    “That is a statement of opinion, not fact. Moral codes are societal and subjective.”

    Wow, just wow. We have a moral relativist on our hands. How SJW of you. Of course it is a fact that it is immoral when a person is unable to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and who works without renumeration. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in. Refer to Jesus calling of “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies. Furthermore, a number of people have attempted to invent their own morality and then impose it–Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind. Are you saying that the moral codes they imposed are subjective in nature and thus the citizens of their nations had to “take it good and hard”, that there was no recourse of action to take against their brutality?

    ‘They cannot be proven by syllogism. I was just checking — don’t be offended, but you should have known that.”

    Moral relativists claim there are no absolute moral standards.
    But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard.
    To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
    Thus, the claim that “all moral standards are relative” is illogical.

    ““Slavery” is a moral-alarm word. There is no difference between slavery-as-bondage and the wage-slavery inflicted throughout the world.”

    Of course there is a difference. In “slavery-as-bondage”, a person has NO freedom to leave their situation, as it is perpetual. The slave is punished for engaging in collective actions to improve their condition, such as demand improvements in their housing arrangements. In “wage-slavery”, the worker is free to leave their situation or engage in collective actions to improve their condition, such as strike.

    “You will find people in China, for instance, working and existing under conditions far more cruel than our antebellum southland.”

    Did you not say that moral codes are societal and subjective? Thus, your comparison regarding whether one labor system is more cruel than another labor system is effectively neutered.

    “Yes, I am aware that the banner of moral outrage rises reflexively, but give it a rest now and then. The current state of Humanity is an economic problem, not a moral problem.”

    The current state of humanity is decidedly a moral issue, which is manifested by conflicting political, economic, and social ideologies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Lets remember who initiated and carried out the genocidal aspects of the Soviet Union. Here is an Israeli commentary. Seems to involve at least four-times more victims than adolf.

    Stalin's Jews
    We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish
    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

    Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

    We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

    Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.....

    .... And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.... In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. .... Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history....
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Moral codes are societal and subjective
     
    Beyond any doubt. Have you contradicting evidence? Perhaps something, ah, synthetic a priori? Perhaps something verifiable? Perhaps some initial premise of prima facie categorical truth? Perhaps an undeniable absolute and universal truth?

    Moral relativists claim there are no absolute moral standards.
    But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard.
     
    Are you being deliberately comical, or merely obtuse? I am willing to exchange a bit of intelligent discussion with you, up to a point, and that point would be that "intelligent" be the consistent condition.

    The statement "All moral standards are relative." is NOT a moral standard, you ninny. Worse yet, it's incomplete, as "relative" is neither quantified nor qualified.

    Moral codes are society-based, and subjective with respect to the values of that society. Always have been, always will be.

    Did you not say that moral codes are societal and subjective? Thus, your comparison regarding whether one labor system is more cruel than another labor system is effectively neutered.
     
    No, the evaluation of labor conditions remains a subjective quality recognized by the perceiver. The perceiver's judgment is effected by the moral values his society observes.

    In “wage-slavery”, the worker is free to leave their situation or engage in collective actions to improve their condition, such as strike.

     

    No. In true wage-slavery the worker is not free to leave -- he or she must work or starve and be thrown out of labor housing; also he or she is indebted to the wage-slaver, and slavery-equivalent laws will enforce the requirement. Labor conditions that permit a "strike" are not wage-slavery.

    The current state of humanity is decidedly a moral issue, which is manifested by conflicting political, economic, and social ideologies.
     
    Well, perhaps an ethical issue, certainly not a moral issue. I'm told that RC priests tortured and killed Aztecs for failing to behave according to the moral standards the Spaniards insisted they adopt. Now, THAT is moral standards hard at work!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. hyperbola says:

    Pretty clear that most participants here know virtually nothing about Spain, Catalonia, or even successful confederal models in Europe. Long, complicated topics, so I will make only a few short comments here.

    1. The present spanish monarchy essentially involved a murderous dictator designating a king. A poisonous contradiction (restoring a monarchy) was mostly accepted to escape from the murderous dictatorship. There are “republicans” who would like to end the monarchy throughout Spain, including Catalonia. The issue of constitutional reform is now on the table and the Spanish would be wise to get rid of such an anachronism. The country has suffered every time that it has had foreigners as kings, starting with the “germans” Carlos I and Carlos II who bled Spaniards for numerous wars in Europe. The present royal family is of French (the Borbons) and German (Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg-Glücksburg) ancestry. The grandmother of the present king (Felipe) can be seen (together with her brothers) dressed in the uniform of the Hitler Youth in numerous web sites.

    2. Cataluña is not the only area of Spain that “rebels” against right-wing, centralized control. Similar sentiments are present (to more or less degree) in Pais Vasco, Galicia, Valencia, Baleares, Canarias, …. Spain has a centuries long history of failing to deal with the pluri-national nature of the country and seems to be failing once again.

    3. There are models of pluri-national confederations/nations that are exemplary instances of how to deal with such problems. Switzerland is perhaps the best known. The “Eidgenossenschaft” (confederation) of the german-speaking areas dates from about 1250 and initially involved seven independent countries, each of which retained its own sovereignity. The model was soon after copied in the french- and italian-speaking areas of modern Switzerland. The present confederation includes 27 kantons (the federal constitution guarantees that they remain sovereign nations, i.e. in principle can withdraw) and 4 different languages. The Kantons retain power over taxes, education, welfare, citizenship, ….. Direct democracy reigns at both the national and kantonal level, i.e. citizens can reject/initiate laws by referendum, including kantonal taxation/expenditure.

    4. Spain actually has a mixed system in which certain “autonomia” (states – Pais Vasco, Navarra, Aragon) have a status somewhat like Kantons in Switzerland, e.g. a separate status with regard to taxation.

    Probably the best thing that Spain could do would be to copy the Swiss model and get rid of the monarchy. Probably even Cataluña could be convinced to join such a model.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Virgen del Pilar
    Leave Spain alone with your mesianic hiperbolic elucubrations , Leave us in peace , hiperbola
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. hyperbola says:
    @Corvinus
    "That is a statement of opinion, not fact. Moral codes are societal and subjective."

    Wow, just wow. We have a moral relativist on our hands. How SJW of you. Of course it is a fact that it is immoral when a person is unable to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and who works without renumeration. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in. Refer to Jesus calling of "love thy neighbor as thyself". Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies. Furthermore, a number of people have attempted to invent their own morality and then impose it--Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind. Are you saying that the moral codes they imposed are subjective in nature and thus the citizens of their nations had to "take it good and hard", that there was no recourse of action to take against their brutality?

    'They cannot be proven by syllogism. I was just checking — don’t be offended, but you should have known that."

    Moral relativists claim there are no absolute moral standards.
    But "all moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.
    To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
    Thus, the claim that "all moral standards are relative" is illogical.

    "“Slavery” is a moral-alarm word. There is no difference between slavery-as-bondage and the wage-slavery inflicted throughout the world."

    Of course there is a difference. In "slavery-as-bondage", a person has NO freedom to leave their situation, as it is perpetual. The slave is punished for engaging in collective actions to improve their condition, such as demand improvements in their housing arrangements. In "wage-slavery", the worker is free to leave their situation or engage in collective actions to improve their condition, such as strike.

    "You will find people in China, for instance, working and existing under conditions far more cruel than our antebellum southland."

    Did you not say that moral codes are societal and subjective? Thus, your comparison regarding whether one labor system is more cruel than another labor system is effectively neutered.

    "Yes, I am aware that the banner of moral outrage rises reflexively, but give it a rest now and then. The current state of Humanity is an economic problem, not a moral problem."

    The current state of humanity is decidedly a moral issue, which is manifested by conflicting political, economic, and social ideologies.

    Lets remember who initiated and carried out the genocidal aspects of the Soviet Union. Here is an Israeli commentary. Seems to involve at least four-times more victims than adolf.

    Stalin’s Jews
    We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    [MORE]

    Here’s a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

    Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

    We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

    Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, “opposition members” who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself…..

    …. And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system…. In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. …. Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    [Laughs] Your murdering of the facts exceeds any Jew body count.

    Let's go back to a hanging chad. You had made this claim--Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.

    Per usual, rather than specifically address your claim, you bolted. The more you avoid offering relevant evidence in support, the more you are engaging in deception.

    Let us also address another hanging chad, that being your insistence that “In the US there are studies that claim that less than 4% of white southerners owned slaves, but over 40% of southern jews owned slaves. I always remember walking around the main southern slaving port (Charleston). The big stone mansions of the (jewish) slave traders are on the water front, the wooden mansions of the wealthy whites are a bit further inland and the shanty towns of the blacks are still further inland – to this day.”

    Dr. Malcolm Stern investigated the 1790 manuscript census returns of South Carolina. He noted seventy-three heads of households were identified as Jewish. Out of this number, thirty-four owned one or more slaves, to a total of 151 slaves. The only large holdings of slaves were possessed by one family from Charleston (11), and three families from Georgetown consisting of 21, 11, and 9 slaves.
    Jews generally lived in urban areas, so it is other than surprising that they had one or two domestic slaves. 34/73 = 46.6%, which compares to an ownership rate of 34.2% in all South Carolina households in 1790. Note that those 34 Jewish slave-owning households were out of 8,859 total slave-owning households in South Carolina in 1790; that would mean Jews were 0.4% of slave owners here. Furthermore, one could argue that the reason why wealthy Jews owned slaves similar to wealthy non-Jews was due to their shared belief in desiring a lifestyle free from domestic work. In other words, both groups displayed their riches by having slaves take care of the household to enable these groups to enjoy a leisurely lifestyle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Neal
    Who wants to be linked up with losers from Connecticut and Rhode Island.

    A Boston reader

    Hahahaaaa!

    Just some of the girls at Providence College.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Corvinus
    "Is America a nation?"

    Absolutely.

    "Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common."

    Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

    “Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.”

    Hawaii and Puerto Rico should be given their independence, no matter if they want it or not. Alaska can stay or it can go on it’s own. Every other region, state or portion there of should be given the ability to secede.

    America is a nation, but Asians and Spanish hybrids are not Americans. They might have US citizenship, but they are not American. Derbyshire isn’t an American either, he is an immigrant Englishman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Puerto Rico must go, for sure. Peacefully and on generous terms, if at all possible.

    Hawaii, we should keep, partly for strategic defense purposes and because we can manage its society as sufficiently American and civilized. And it's so damn beautiful! Seriously, the still-hostile "native Hawaiians" are becoming a minority, with the Filipinos the largest and youngest single group, followed closely by an aging Japanese population. Of course, a growing number of people who are half white, half Filipino like my children, or half white, half Japanese/Chinese/Korean.

    Alaska sure as Hell should stay, and its natural resources alone could explain that one.

    Can't say I agree with you about Derb, at all. God bless John Derbyshire, a true American. I'm glad he came to the USA.

    , @Corvinus
    "Hawaii and Puerto Rico should be given their independence, no matter if they want it or not."

    Hawaiians are American citizens. They are not going to be cast off. Regarding Puerto Rico, thank you very much for your opinion.

    "Alaska can stay or it can go on it’s own."

    They will stay.

    "Every other region, state or portion there of should be given the ability to secede."

    No. Secession died in 1865 with the northern victory over the Confederacy in the Civil War.

    "America is a nation, but Asians and Spanish hybrids are not Americans."

    Of course Asians and Spanish hybrids are Americans, provided they were born here or are naturalized citizens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Corvinus
    "That is a statement of opinion, not fact. Moral codes are societal and subjective."

    Wow, just wow. We have a moral relativist on our hands. How SJW of you. Of course it is a fact that it is immoral when a person is unable to withdraw unilaterally from a violently forced labor deal and who works without renumeration. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in. Refer to Jesus calling of "love thy neighbor as thyself". Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies. Furthermore, a number of people have attempted to invent their own morality and then impose it--Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind. Are you saying that the moral codes they imposed are subjective in nature and thus the citizens of their nations had to "take it good and hard", that there was no recourse of action to take against their brutality?

    'They cannot be proven by syllogism. I was just checking — don’t be offended, but you should have known that."

    Moral relativists claim there are no absolute moral standards.
    But "all moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.
    To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
    Thus, the claim that "all moral standards are relative" is illogical.

    "“Slavery” is a moral-alarm word. There is no difference between slavery-as-bondage and the wage-slavery inflicted throughout the world."

    Of course there is a difference. In "slavery-as-bondage", a person has NO freedom to leave their situation, as it is perpetual. The slave is punished for engaging in collective actions to improve their condition, such as demand improvements in their housing arrangements. In "wage-slavery", the worker is free to leave their situation or engage in collective actions to improve their condition, such as strike.

    "You will find people in China, for instance, working and existing under conditions far more cruel than our antebellum southland."

    Did you not say that moral codes are societal and subjective? Thus, your comparison regarding whether one labor system is more cruel than another labor system is effectively neutered.

    "Yes, I am aware that the banner of moral outrage rises reflexively, but give it a rest now and then. The current state of Humanity is an economic problem, not a moral problem."

    The current state of humanity is decidedly a moral issue, which is manifested by conflicting political, economic, and social ideologies.

    Moral codes are societal and subjective

    Beyond any doubt. Have you contradicting evidence? Perhaps something, ah, synthetic a priori? Perhaps something verifiable? Perhaps some initial premise of prima facie categorical truth? Perhaps an undeniable absolute and universal truth?

    Moral relativists claim there are no absolute moral standards.
    But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard.

    Are you being deliberately comical, or merely obtuse? I am willing to exchange a bit of intelligent discussion with you, up to a point, and that point would be that “intelligent” be the consistent condition.

    The statement “All moral standards are relative.” is NOT a moral standard, you ninny. Worse yet, it’s incomplete, as “relative” is neither quantified nor qualified.

    Moral codes are society-based, and subjective with respect to the values of that society. Always have been, always will be.

    Did you not say that moral codes are societal and subjective? Thus, your comparison regarding whether one labor system is more cruel than another labor system is effectively neutered.

    No, the evaluation of labor conditions remains a subjective quality recognized by the perceiver. The perceiver’s judgment is effected by the moral values his society observes.

    In “wage-slavery”, the worker is free to leave their situation or engage in collective actions to improve their condition, such as strike.

    No. In true wage-slavery the worker is not free to leave — he or she must work or starve and be thrown out of labor housing; also he or she is indebted to the wage-slaver, and slavery-equivalent laws will enforce the requirement. Labor conditions that permit a “strike” are not wage-slavery.

    The current state of humanity is decidedly a moral issue, which is manifested by conflicting political, economic, and social ideologies.

    Well, perhaps an ethical issue, certainly not a moral issue. I’m told that RC priests tortured and killed Aztecs for failing to behave according to the moral standards the Spaniards insisted they adopt. Now, THAT is moral standards hard at work!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Beyond any doubt. Have you contradicting evidence? Perhaps something, ah, synthetic a priori? Perhaps something verifiable? Perhaps some initial premise of prima facie categorical truth? Perhaps an undeniable absolute and universal truth?"

    I will say it again since you glossed over it. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in. Refer to Jesus calling of “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Refer to Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies. Furthermore, a number of people have attempted to invent their own morality and then impose it–Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind.

    In addition, "The murdering ofvvv mior race. There are central tenets ALL humans share in regards to morality such as give your children a loving home to grow up in and live your lives with dignity, and respect for yourself.

    "The statement “All moral standards are relative.” is NOT a moral standard, you ninny."

    You must take into account the ENTIRE premise--But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard. In other words, the claim states that the only RIGHT way to look at moral standards is basing it on the norms of a society. Any way to the contrary is other than right.

    "No, the evaluation of labor conditions remains a subjective quality recognized by the perceiver. The perceiver’s judgment is effected by the moral values his society observes."

    No. A person who seizes by force another person to work in a field against their will is engaging in clear immoral conduct. There is no "subjective quality" here. It is universally abhorred for a person to be physically taken away from their homeland, stripped of their dignity, and be subjected to violent reprisals if that he/she fails to toil for someone who claims to be their master. The values by which the labor conditions were created--the desire for workers in perpetual bondage--is patently wrong.

    "No. In true wage-slavery the worker is not free to leave — he or she must work or starve and be thrown out of labor housing; also he or she is indebted to the wage-slaver, and slavery-equivalent laws will enforce the requirement. Labor conditions that permit a “strike” are not wage-slavery."

    Not "true wage-slavery", just wage-slavery. The worker, who receives hourly wages for their toil, is able to leave whenever he/she wants. They are not bound by law to remain permanently employed by the factory owner. They may be required to give notice, but the worker can quit at any point in time. There is only "indebtedness" IF the worker had subjected himself to the rules of a company town where he/she was paid in script and had incurred expenses. Furthermore, workers have the freedom to collectively organize and make demands to the factory owner, who may accept or reject them.

    The slave has NO such liberty or options.

    "I’m told that RC priests tortured and killed Aztecs for failing to behave according to the moral standards the Spaniards insisted they adopt. Now, THAT is moral standards hard at work!"

    No, that is immorality at work--murder, torture, and destruction of one's culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Mark Presco says: • Website

    As a born and bred Californian now living in Del Norte County, I support California’s secession. Northern Californians have been trying to secede from California since 1941. This might give us that opportunity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. @hyperbola
    Pretty clear that most participants here know virtually nothing about Spain, Catalonia, or even successful confederal models in Europe. Long, complicated topics, so I will make only a few short comments here.

    1. The present spanish monarchy essentially involved a murderous dictator designating a king. A poisonous contradiction (restoring a monarchy) was mostly accepted to escape from the murderous dictatorship. There are "republicans" who would like to end the monarchy throughout Spain, including Catalonia. The issue of constitutional reform is now on the table and the Spanish would be wise to get rid of such an anachronism. The country has suffered every time that it has had foreigners as kings, starting with the "germans" Carlos I and Carlos II who bled Spaniards for numerous wars in Europe. The present royal family is of French (the Borbons) and German (Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg-Glücksburg) ancestry. The grandmother of the present king (Felipe) can be seen (together with her brothers) dressed in the uniform of the Hitler Youth in numerous web sites.

    2. Cataluña is not the only area of Spain that "rebels" against right-wing, centralized control. Similar sentiments are present (to more or less degree) in Pais Vasco, Galicia, Valencia, Baleares, Canarias, .... Spain has a centuries long history of failing to deal with the pluri-national nature of the country and seems to be failing once again.

    3. There are models of pluri-national confederations/nations that are exemplary instances of how to deal with such problems. Switzerland is perhaps the best known. The "Eidgenossenschaft" (confederation) of the german-speaking areas dates from about 1250 and initially involved seven independent countries, each of which retained its own sovereignity. The model was soon after copied in the french- and italian-speaking areas of modern Switzerland. The present confederation includes 27 kantons (the federal constitution guarantees that they remain sovereign nations, i.e. in principle can withdraw) and 4 different languages. The Kantons retain power over taxes, education, welfare, citizenship, ..... Direct democracy reigns at both the national and kantonal level, i.e. citizens can reject/initiate laws by referendum, including kantonal taxation/expenditure.

    4. Spain actually has a mixed system in which certain "autonomia" (states - Pais Vasco, Navarra, Aragon) have a status somewhat like Kantons in Switzerland, e.g. a separate status with regard to taxation.

    Probably the best thing that Spain could do would be to copy the Swiss model and get rid of the monarchy. Probably even Cataluña could be convinced to join such a model.

    Leave Spain alone with your mesianic hiperbolic elucubrations , Leave us in peace , hiperbola

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Pursuit of Happiness?

    Pursuit of Hepatitis.

    Calcuttafornia

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. @Eric Novak
    Californians won't be keeping 1/4 of its current territory. Nat'l Forests, Nat'l Parks, US Dept. of Defense land, Nat'l Seashores, Nat'l Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, etc., etc, all belong to the US Federal Gov't and will remain the property of the 49 states.

    Perhaps CA should be allowed to keep about a tenth of the federal land within its borders as a compromise, as it has at least a tenth of the country’s 350-plus million people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. PeteO2 says:

    “But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians [ How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland, Chicago Tribune, July 92006] the cab drivers are all Polish; and the current Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, is an open homosexual whose father was an Indian born in Bombay.”

    If this piece about nationalism or racism?

    An Irish citizen of Polish or Indian background is Irish. His/her nation is Ireland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    An Irish citizen of Polish or Indian background is Irish. His/her nation is Ireland.
     
    does that also apply to white Zimbabweans?

    because the entire Western world has looked the other way as these people have been ethnically cleansed from their farms and homes that their great grandfathers built and the nation that their ancestors carved out of the jungle, for one reason and one reason only, the color of their skin.

    the same thing is happening in S. Africa today, with the silent complicity of the Western world.

    why? because being a white African is considered an oxymoron today, by the very same smug 'anti-racists' that you sort of sound like..

    a few Irish of Indian background are not a problem, but when you have enough millions of non-Irish, then Ireland will cease to be Irish. Duh
    , @songbird
    A Pole could conceivably become Irish in time. It is absurd to call an Indian or black or Muslim Irish merely for residing there. What loyalty do they have? Absolutely none - actually worse than none. They are colonists. An African in Africa or an Indian in India doesn't particularly give a fig about Ireland. A typical "Irish" black or Indian wants to destroy Irishness, to open up the floodgates and makes whites a minority there. To make the culture multicultural, to import all their cousins. To denigrate whites and to discriminate against them, and take their tax money, all while keeping their own countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Maus says:
    @Anonymous

    Catalonia, in the southeastern corner of Spain, is in the news.
     
    Seriously, Fred? Never saw a map?

    Seriously, Anon at #35. It’s John, not Fred. Hypocrite much?
    The geo-location is not relatively germane to John’s point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Chris Mallory

    “Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.”
     
    Hawaii and Puerto Rico should be given their independence, no matter if they want it or not. Alaska can stay or it can go on it's own. Every other region, state or portion there of should be given the ability to secede.

    America is a nation, but Asians and Spanish hybrids are not Americans. They might have US citizenship, but they are not American. Derbyshire isn't an American either, he is an immigrant Englishman.

    Puerto Rico must go, for sure. Peacefully and on generous terms, if at all possible.

    Hawaii, we should keep, partly for strategic defense purposes and because we can manage its society as sufficiently American and civilized. And it’s so damn beautiful! Seriously, the still-hostile “native Hawaiians” are becoming a minority, with the Filipinos the largest and youngest single group, followed closely by an aging Japanese population. Of course, a growing number of people who are half white, half Filipino like my children, or half white, half Japanese/Chinese/Korean.

    Alaska sure as Hell should stay, and its natural resources alone could explain that one.

    Can’t say I agree with you about Derb, at all. God bless John Derbyshire, a true American. I’m glad he came to the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Puerto Rico must go, for sure. Peacefully and on generous terms, if at all possible."

    Maybe. But probably not.

    "Hawaii, we should keep, partly for strategic defense purposes and because we can manage its society as sufficiently American and civilized."

    Who is this "we" you refer to as managing its society? Furthermore, Hawaii was civilized long before whites stepped on its shores.

    "And it’s so damn beautiful! Seriously, the still-hostile “native Hawaiians” are becoming a minority..."

    I would imagine that there would be some native Hawaiians who remain angry at how their island was seized by white plantation owners.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Art says:

    If Catalonia, why not California, or Texas, or New England?

    All right; history has its ebbs and flows, to be sure, and to stand athwart them crying “Stop!” is most likely futile. As a conservative, though, I rather strongly favor leaving the big old nations as they are, absent some obvious and pressing need to break them up.

    Why keep it – it is not working – the US is now a monetary oligarchy – where everything is about money and wars for Israel. America is now run for and by Manhattan Island banks.

    The US government is a dinosaur burdened with a failing monetary system and endless wars – run by unfriendly people that have it in in for the average folks.

    Eventually we will have no choice but to breakup into rational regional city states where the ownership of everything will be local – NOT in Wall Street.

    That is our future – a good stable future – a non-war future.

    Think Peace — Art

    (Weinstein America off)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. Corvinus says:
    @hyperbola
    Lets remember who initiated and carried out the genocidal aspects of the Soviet Union. Here is an Israeli commentary. Seems to involve at least four-times more victims than adolf.

    Stalin's Jews
    We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish
    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

    Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

    We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

    Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.....

    .... And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.... In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. .... Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history....

    [Laughs] Your murdering of the facts exceeds any Jew body count.

    Let’s go back to a hanging chad. You had made this claim–Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.

    Per usual, rather than specifically address your claim, you bolted. The more you avoid offering relevant evidence in support, the more you are engaging in deception.

    Let us also address another hanging chad, that being your insistence that “In the US there are studies that claim that less than 4% of white southerners owned slaves, but over 40% of southern jews owned slaves. I always remember walking around the main southern slaving port (Charleston). The big stone mansions of the (jewish) slave traders are on the water front, the wooden mansions of the wealthy whites are a bit further inland and the shanty towns of the blacks are still further inland – to this day.”

    Dr. Malcolm Stern investigated the 1790 manuscript census returns of South Carolina. He noted seventy-three heads of households were identified as Jewish. Out of this number, thirty-four owned one or more slaves, to a total of 151 slaves. The only large holdings of slaves were possessed by one family from Charleston (11), and three families from Georgetown consisting of 21, 11, and 9 slaves.
    Jews generally lived in urban areas, so it is other than surprising that they had one or two domestic slaves. 34/73 = 46.6%, which compares to an ownership rate of 34.2% in all South Carolina households in 1790. Note that those 34 Jewish slave-owning households were out of 8,859 total slave-owning households in South Carolina in 1790; that would mean Jews were 0.4% of slave owners here. Furthermore, one could argue that the reason why wealthy Jews owned slaves similar to wealthy non-Jews was due to their shared belief in desiring a lifestyle free from domestic work. In other words, both groups displayed their riches by having slaves take care of the household to enable these groups to enjoy a leisurely lifestyle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    As non-tillers of the soil (then and now) Jews were primarily involved in the slave trade at every level from owning and out-fitting the ships bound for Africa, down to selling slaves at local slave markets, which by the way, were traditionally closed on Jewish holidays. Jewish ownership of slaves was therefore transient in nature. Speculation on how many slaves one particular Jew might own at any moment in time, would be like speculation on how many cars a used car salesman owns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Corvinus says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Moral codes are societal and subjective
     
    Beyond any doubt. Have you contradicting evidence? Perhaps something, ah, synthetic a priori? Perhaps something verifiable? Perhaps some initial premise of prima facie categorical truth? Perhaps an undeniable absolute and universal truth?

    Moral relativists claim there are no absolute moral standards.
    But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard.
     
    Are you being deliberately comical, or merely obtuse? I am willing to exchange a bit of intelligent discussion with you, up to a point, and that point would be that "intelligent" be the consistent condition.

    The statement "All moral standards are relative." is NOT a moral standard, you ninny. Worse yet, it's incomplete, as "relative" is neither quantified nor qualified.

    Moral codes are society-based, and subjective with respect to the values of that society. Always have been, always will be.

    Did you not say that moral codes are societal and subjective? Thus, your comparison regarding whether one labor system is more cruel than another labor system is effectively neutered.
     
    No, the evaluation of labor conditions remains a subjective quality recognized by the perceiver. The perceiver's judgment is effected by the moral values his society observes.

    In “wage-slavery”, the worker is free to leave their situation or engage in collective actions to improve their condition, such as strike.

     

    No. In true wage-slavery the worker is not free to leave -- he or she must work or starve and be thrown out of labor housing; also he or she is indebted to the wage-slaver, and slavery-equivalent laws will enforce the requirement. Labor conditions that permit a "strike" are not wage-slavery.

    The current state of humanity is decidedly a moral issue, which is manifested by conflicting political, economic, and social ideologies.
     
    Well, perhaps an ethical issue, certainly not a moral issue. I'm told that RC priests tortured and killed Aztecs for failing to behave according to the moral standards the Spaniards insisted they adopt. Now, THAT is moral standards hard at work!

    “Beyond any doubt. Have you contradicting evidence? Perhaps something, ah, synthetic a priori? Perhaps something verifiable? Perhaps some initial premise of prima facie categorical truth? Perhaps an undeniable absolute and universal truth?”

    I will say it again since you glossed over it. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in. Refer to Jesus calling of “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Refer to Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies. Furthermore, a number of people have attempted to invent their own morality and then impose it–Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind.

    In addition, “The murdering ofvvv mior race. There are central tenets ALL humans share in regards to morality such as give your children a loving home to grow up in and live your lives with dignity, and respect for yourself.

    “The statement “All moral standards are relative.” is NOT a moral standard, you ninny.”

    You must take into account the ENTIRE premise–But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard. In other words, the claim states that the only RIGHT way to look at moral standards is basing it on the norms of a society. Any way to the contrary is other than right.

    “No, the evaluation of labor conditions remains a subjective quality recognized by the perceiver. The perceiver’s judgment is effected by the moral values his society observes.”

    No. A person who seizes by force another person to work in a field against their will is engaging in clear immoral conduct. There is no “subjective quality” here. It is universally abhorred for a person to be physically taken away from their homeland, stripped of their dignity, and be subjected to violent reprisals if that he/she fails to toil for someone who claims to be their master. The values by which the labor conditions were created–the desire for workers in perpetual bondage–is patently wrong.

    “No. In true wage-slavery the worker is not free to leave — he or she must work or starve and be thrown out of labor housing; also he or she is indebted to the wage-slaver, and slavery-equivalent laws will enforce the requirement. Labor conditions that permit a “strike” are not wage-slavery.”

    Not “true wage-slavery”, just wage-slavery. The worker, who receives hourly wages for their toil, is able to leave whenever he/she wants. They are not bound by law to remain permanently employed by the factory owner. They may be required to give notice, but the worker can quit at any point in time. There is only “indebtedness” IF the worker had subjected himself to the rules of a company town where he/she was paid in script and had incurred expenses. Furthermore, workers have the freedom to collectively organize and make demands to the factory owner, who may accept or reject them.

    The slave has NO such liberty or options.

    “I’m told that RC priests tortured and killed Aztecs for failing to behave according to the moral standards the Spaniards insisted they adopt. Now, THAT is moral standards hard at work!”

    No, that is immorality at work–murder, torture, and destruction of one’s culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I will say it again since you glossed over it. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in.
     
    LOL, oh no, there are not. Stop making me laugh.

    Refer to Jesus calling of “love thy neighbor as thyself”.
     
    Refer to "Know thyself" and to "To thine own self be true." as contrapositive. Be aware that EVERYTHING that Jesus is credited with is found in philosophy and social mores of cultures preceding Jesus and his Hebraic foundation. In fact, most of Hebraic theology that Jesus uses as preface to the new millennium is stolen from Zoroastrianism and re-cast as a Hebraic reformation.

    Refer to Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies.
     
    Well, sort of. The entire premise of practical Christianity is based on the omnipresent principle of reciprocity, with a teaser form of immortality thrown in.

    You must take into account the ENTIRE premise–But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard. In other words, the claim states that the only RIGHT way to look at moral standards is basing it on the norms of a society. Any way to the contrary is other than right.
     
    Um, right there you're getting so stupid that I'm probably going to have to back away from discussion with you. Specifically, no, the statement that "all moral standards are relative" is NOT a proposition of an absolute moral standard. I can readily envision Ludwig Wittgenstein putting you over his knee and thwacking you with vigor for suggesting such nonsense.

    Looking over the rest of your nonsense ... good lord, why would I bother? Good-bye.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Corvinus says:
    @Chris Mallory

    “Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.”
     
    Hawaii and Puerto Rico should be given their independence, no matter if they want it or not. Alaska can stay or it can go on it's own. Every other region, state or portion there of should be given the ability to secede.

    America is a nation, but Asians and Spanish hybrids are not Americans. They might have US citizenship, but they are not American. Derbyshire isn't an American either, he is an immigrant Englishman.

    “Hawaii and Puerto Rico should be given their independence, no matter if they want it or not.”

    Hawaiians are American citizens. They are not going to be cast off. Regarding Puerto Rico, thank you very much for your opinion.

    “Alaska can stay or it can go on it’s own.”

    They will stay.

    “Every other region, state or portion there of should be given the ability to secede.”

    No. Secession died in 1865 with the northern victory over the Confederacy in the Civil War.

    “America is a nation, but Asians and Spanish hybrids are not Americans.”

    Of course Asians and Spanish hybrids are Americans, provided they were born here or are naturalized citizens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Puerto Rico must go, for sure. Peacefully and on generous terms, if at all possible.

    Hawaii, we should keep, partly for strategic defense purposes and because we can manage its society as sufficiently American and civilized. And it's so damn beautiful! Seriously, the still-hostile "native Hawaiians" are becoming a minority, with the Filipinos the largest and youngest single group, followed closely by an aging Japanese population. Of course, a growing number of people who are half white, half Filipino like my children, or half white, half Japanese/Chinese/Korean.

    Alaska sure as Hell should stay, and its natural resources alone could explain that one.

    Can't say I agree with you about Derb, at all. God bless John Derbyshire, a true American. I'm glad he came to the USA.

    “Puerto Rico must go, for sure. Peacefully and on generous terms, if at all possible.”

    Maybe. But probably not.

    “Hawaii, we should keep, partly for strategic defense purposes and because we can manage its society as sufficiently American and civilized.”

    Who is this “we” you refer to as managing its society? Furthermore, Hawaii was civilized long before whites stepped on its shores.

    “And it’s so damn beautiful! Seriously, the still-hostile “native Hawaiians” are becoming a minority…”

    I would imagine that there would be some native Hawaiians who remain angry at how their island was seized by white plantation owners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Johann says:
    @Hibernian
    EU membership links Ireland with Catholic Spain, Portugal, and Italy, nominally Catholic France, and Germany which although majority Protestant has a large Catholic minority. This is a tentative partial explanation, not an endorsement.

    It is hard to believe that Ireland of 2017 AD is a Catholic country. From my sources Ireland has jettisoned its Catholic Faith eagerly. There are more practicing Catholics in Northern Ireland UK than in the so called Republic, ironically so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. yeah says:
    @Sean
    Catalonian like Scottish nationalism is largely motivated by resentment by region that perceives itself as being used by a milch cow. Ireland was more authentically nationalist. Powell said the British state was always keen to divest itself of Ireland , but originally wanted the fig leaf of home rule. According to Paul Johnson in the Offshore Islanders, Ireland was a net drain of Britain (that might also have been true of the Empire be the begining of the 20th century. Arthur Balfour was right their could be no halfway house.

    Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them.
     
    People who are impoverished proclaim their allegiance to their community, because they are looking for help. Hence nationalism and especially religion.

    . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-replace-religion-by-2041-a-clarification_b_3695658.html
    Research has shown that religion declines not just with rising national wealth but with all plausible measures of the quality of life, including length of life, decline of infectious diseases, education, the rise of the welfare state, and more equal distribution of income. Clearly there is less of a market for religion in societies where ordinary people feel secure in their daily lives. In the most developed countries, such as Japan and Sweden, the quality of life is so good that the majority is already secular.
     
    Religion in an affluent society has not a snowball's chance in hell . When it was the poorest country in Europe, Scotland was a byword for religious fanaticism. A crypto-clerical Irish state had economic growth that was the poorest in western Europe and possibly all Europe. But once hyper-capitalism transformed Ireland, it became like everywhere else--only worse. They don't need the Church now--or nationalism. With war you would see nationalism. It is not nationalism that produces war but more the other way about. Germany got tired of great powers marching across it. Cambodia and North Korea too. For a resurgence of worldwide nationalism, a global war more true in the Clausewitz sense (ie unlimited) than anything imaginable would be needed.

    I wouldn’t write-off religion so easily. History has never been a linear process; times of affluence and want, times of security and strife, have all come and gone repeatedly, but religion has stayed on. Religion is a multi-faceted thing, answering to different peoples’ different and inner-most needs. Yes, it is massively on the retreat in the west, but so it has in other historical periods. Expect it to bounce back – for better or worse is a different topic. In a way the most anti-religion people – communists, identity warriors, empiricists, and others, have tended to believe so absolutely in their own viewpoints that such belief is tantamount to the blind belief of traditional religions. Real atheism to me is the ability to suspend judgment and belief except when the evidence is strong enough to knock one down. To trade one set of dogmas with another does not constitute movement.

    Nor would I write-off nationalism so easily. Some variety of it is inherent in all social animals, whether it is allegiance to the pack, or to the tribe, or to the city, or to one’s group, or to some other grouping. A new kind of nationalism is very much alive and thriving today: the transnationalism of the globalists and the elites. They see themselves as citizens of the world and the world as their oyster. The counter-reaction to that is already setting of revivals of various kinds of nationalisms of the traditional kind, sub-nationalisms of the tribal sort, and group mentalities of all kinds. War or no war, nationalism in various forms and mutations will endure if we go by human history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Myanmar (the worlds only Buddhist country) shows that you cannot really separate nationalism from religion. War between countries is obsolete in the West ,and the rest of the developed world has no intention of fighting when the West is opening up to them.

    The enemy of Western elites are the militarily and economically redundant masses, and immigration is a class war on the redundant mass. The immigrants are a political counterweight and maybe a reserve army for any popular uprising.. In Myanmar the native masses are still needed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Rurik says:
    @PeteO2
    “But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians [ How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland, Chicago Tribune, July 92006] the cab drivers are all Polish; and the current Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, is an open homosexual whose father was an Indian born in Bombay.”

    If this piece about nationalism or racism?

    An Irish citizen of Polish or Indian background is Irish. His/her nation is Ireland.

    An Irish citizen of Polish or Indian background is Irish. His/her nation is Ireland.

    does that also apply to white Zimbabweans?

    because the entire Western world has looked the other way as these people have been ethnically cleansed from their farms and homes that their great grandfathers built and the nation that their ancestors carved out of the jungle, for one reason and one reason only, the color of their skin.

    the same thing is happening in S. Africa today, with the silent complicity of the Western world.

    why? because being a white African is considered an oxymoron today, by the very same smug ‘anti-racists’ that you sort of sound like..

    a few Irish of Indian background are not a problem, but when you have enough millions of non-Irish, then Ireland will cease to be Irish. Duh

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes, Carroll Price
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. I once read John Derbyshite writing on Scottish Nationalism – it was excrement – JD has no legitimate right to offer an opinion on it. Nor are we interested in trying to -impress- the likes of you, sir – why would we care?

    I like Unz, at times, but if its writers were Public Enemy, then JD would be Flavor Flav, most definitely.

    As for the referendum of 2014 in Scotland – some insider thoughts for anyone interested …

    - it was offered in the first place because the unionists expected to win by a country MILE (- never offer the people a referendum if you cannot guarantee the outcome) – thus having been won by the union, the nationalists would have been “shut up” for a generation or so. That was the cunning plan.

    But the unionists ran a piss-poor media campaign full of unattractive has-beens who radiated complacency – their lead plummeted quickly – and this led to desperate measures, i.e. the referendum was rigged. This was done by flipping 200K postal votes, which is quite easy to do if the printers work for you. The snide votes were then spread around the counting centres.

    There was no rigging at the counts, forget all the stupid youtube videos that were about at the time.

    No one can prove this happened but the circumstantial evidence is deafening.

    There were anomalous voting patterns – strong SNP (nationalist) supporting areas voted NO, while at the time, remnant Labour (unionist) areas, voted YES. Work that one out. Or ask John Curtice, the resident psephologist – but no one ever did, or has. There were also lower turnouts in the areas which did vote YES – remember this was all about total votes, not constituencies or any of that nonsense.

    Notably, the postal votes were NOT counted separately, but mixed back in with the normal ballots at the counting centres. Let that one sink in … then ask yourself why. (It means there can be no separate check of the postal votes, if you are struggling to keep up.)

    Ruth Davidson the conservative leader clearly knew the result on the night – before the count had even started – she claimed to have seen a sample of postal returns while on live television. This is against the law but the police “investigation” went nowhere. She should have been charged, the only evidence needed – a BBC videotape.

    It was admitted en passant that the postal votes held the victory – for the strongest support for the union was among pensioners (“seniors”) … and this is the group which overwhelmingly uses the postal ballot.

    There were other little “tells” – for example – photography was banned in the voting stations, supposedly to maintain anonymity – but what if you did all that rigging and then all these voters went and uploaded photos of their completed ballots onto social media – and then some clever geek wrote a program to count them all. That could be embarrassing.

    Exit polls were banned. No reason given.

    Opinion polls, in the end, turned out to be quite wrong – a strange phenomenon which has happened a lot, lately.

    The media narrative was inserted early, to provide easy explanation for this surprising victory (- opinion polls put YES slightly ahead on the weekend before) – Gordon Brown and media people parrotted endlessly about a “silent majority” and a “late surge”. Rancid smells if ever there were.

    Scotland, being “white” (- there’s no such thing!) and civilised, did not receive the courtesy of UN observers to ensure it was all “kosher” (- ahem, poor word choice here, my apologies). There is an absolute iron bias in UK media that all our elections are rigorously fair – no media person would ever be allowed to conceptualise about large scale rigging – such things only happen in “wog” countries, or North Korea, or Florida (where the dead vote twice, supposedly). So, whatever the ambient stink, no one will ever ask the question. It is outside the frame of the debate, or the overton window … the civilised limits of public discourse, whatever.

    That’s my “tuppence” (2 cents) about Scotland FYI, as for the essay in general – it seems to be a meandering search for some generalised theory of nationalism, without a strong conclusion, just a pretty weak joke. Even the comments are all over the place.

    The terms trans-nationalism and sub-nationalism do not seem useful, conceptually – lets leave the making-up-of-words to the genderqueer bicurious transracial snowflakes.

    I found the spectacle of Spanish police trying to physically stop voting and even remove ballot boxes, interesting from the perspective of potential fraud – it implies the Spanish lacked the means to rig the vote, and thus they were scared. Next time, we Scots need to ask the Catalans for some technical advice.

    But I really know nothing of Catalonia (I read Orwell but so what?), its history or independence movement and so I will – speak nothing more of it. But I will say this – comparisons are likely to be very misleading and unhelpful, between Scotland and Catalonia, even Scotland and Ireland. As for the idea of the USA splitting up, it probably will, someday, probably 6 separate nations – on my only visit it seemed to be about 6 separate entities cobbled together. You do not need to look for the fault lines – your last election exposed them worse than the Grand Canyon – its all very different, spread out and separate.

    One final point, Scottish Nationalism is strongly of the “civic” variety – ethno-nationalism is regarded as toxic by independence supporters; the current SNP Scottish government is seen as being much more leftwing than any other party in the UK, one which still believes in some form of “socialism” – and so if you are a “nationalist” and a “socialist” and you have many enemies in the media … well, you can all see where this goes – an empty slur, shitty arse-rags like the Daily Telegraph have been trying to make stick for years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If the postal votes were mostly pro-Union old people how would tampering with them affect the result?

    The shitty economy killed Scottish independence. This vote should have been held a decade ago.
    , @Truth

    I like Unz, at times, but if its writers were Public Enemy, then JD would be Flavor Flav, most definitely.
     
    LMFAO!

    It's too bad that one went over you guy's heads. It was almost ridiculously funny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Carlton Meyer
    Why not Texas? From my blog:

    Feb 28, 2015 - No Talk of Texas Independence Permitted

    One legacy of our civil war is the Feds have zero tolerance for any talk of state secession. Any group that discusses the subject is investigated, harassed, and often criminally charged. Here is the latest example, that includes this:

    BRYAN, TX — Federal and local police forces raided a political meeting, taking unusual measures to document every attendee by taking fingerprints and photographs, and seizing every cell phone and all recording equipment in the meeting hall.

    The raid took place on February 14, 2015, at VFW Post 4892 in Bryan, Texas. At 10:10 a.m., an “army of policing agencies with flashing emergency lights” showed up, shut down the meeting of “congenial and unimposing” Texans and forced them to hand over their private effects and biometric data.

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/houston-texas/article/Feds-raid-Texas-secessionist-meeting-6096637.php

    One legacy of our civil war is the Feds have zero tolerance for any talk of state secession. Any group that discusses the subject is investigated, harassed, and often criminally charged. Here is the latest example, that includes this:

    White secessionist groups, yes. However Calexit will be justified on anti-racist grounds: the desire of non-white people to escape a white racist union that persecutes them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @never commented before so why is this blocked
    I once read John Derbyshite writing on Scottish Nationalism - it was excrement - JD has no legitimate right to offer an opinion on it. Nor are we interested in trying to -impress- the likes of you, sir - why would we care?

    I like Unz, at times, but if its writers were Public Enemy, then JD would be Flavor Flav, most definitely.

    As for the referendum of 2014 in Scotland - some insider thoughts for anyone interested ...

    - it was offered in the first place because the unionists expected to win by a country MILE (- never offer the people a referendum if you cannot guarantee the outcome) - thus having been won by the union, the nationalists would have been "shut up" for a generation or so. That was the cunning plan.

    But the unionists ran a piss-poor media campaign full of unattractive has-beens who radiated complacency - their lead plummeted quickly - and this led to desperate measures, i.e. the referendum was rigged. This was done by flipping 200K postal votes, which is quite easy to do if the printers work for you. The snide votes were then spread around the counting centres.

    There was no rigging at the counts, forget all the stupid youtube videos that were about at the time.

    No one can prove this happened but the circumstantial evidence is deafening.

    There were anomalous voting patterns - strong SNP (nationalist) supporting areas voted NO, while at the time, remnant Labour (unionist) areas, voted YES. Work that one out. Or ask John Curtice, the resident psephologist - but no one ever did, or has. There were also lower turnouts in the areas which did vote YES - remember this was all about total votes, not constituencies or any of that nonsense.

    Notably, the postal votes were NOT counted separately, but mixed back in with the normal ballots at the counting centres. Let that one sink in ... then ask yourself why. (It means there can be no separate check of the postal votes, if you are struggling to keep up.)

    Ruth Davidson the conservative leader clearly knew the result on the night - before the count had even started - she claimed to have seen a sample of postal returns while on live television. This is against the law but the police "investigation" went nowhere. She should have been charged, the only evidence needed - a BBC videotape.

    It was admitted en passant that the postal votes held the victory - for the strongest support for the union was among pensioners ("seniors") ... and this is the group which overwhelmingly uses the postal ballot.

    There were other little "tells" - for example - photography was banned in the voting stations, supposedly to maintain anonymity - but what if you did all that rigging and then all these voters went and uploaded photos of their completed ballots onto social media - and then some clever geek wrote a program to count them all. That could be embarrassing.

    Exit polls were banned. No reason given.

    Opinion polls, in the end, turned out to be quite wrong - a strange phenomenon which has happened a lot, lately.

    The media narrative was inserted early, to provide easy explanation for this surprising victory (- opinion polls put YES slightly ahead on the weekend before) - Gordon Brown and media people parrotted endlessly about a "silent majority" and a "late surge". Rancid smells if ever there were.

    Scotland, being "white" (- there's no such thing!) and civilised, did not receive the courtesy of UN observers to ensure it was all "kosher" (- ahem, poor word choice here, my apologies). There is an absolute iron bias in UK media that all our elections are rigorously fair - no media person would ever be allowed to conceptualise about large scale rigging - such things only happen in "wog" countries, or North Korea, or Florida (where the dead vote twice, supposedly). So, whatever the ambient stink, no one will ever ask the question. It is outside the frame of the debate, or the overton window ... the civilised limits of public discourse, whatever.

    That's my "tuppence" (2 cents) about Scotland FYI, as for the essay in general - it seems to be a meandering search for some generalised theory of nationalism, without a strong conclusion, just a pretty weak joke. Even the comments are all over the place.

    The terms trans-nationalism and sub-nationalism do not seem useful, conceptually - lets leave the making-up-of-words to the genderqueer bicurious transracial snowflakes.

    I found the spectacle of Spanish police trying to physically stop voting and even remove ballot boxes, interesting from the perspective of potential fraud - it implies the Spanish lacked the means to rig the vote, and thus they were scared. Next time, we Scots need to ask the Catalans for some technical advice.

    But I really know nothing of Catalonia (I read Orwell but so what?), its history or independence movement and so I will - speak nothing more of it. But I will say this - comparisons are likely to be very misleading and unhelpful, between Scotland and Catalonia, even Scotland and Ireland. As for the idea of the USA splitting up, it probably will, someday, probably 6 separate nations - on my only visit it seemed to be about 6 separate entities cobbled together. You do not need to look for the fault lines - your last election exposed them worse than the Grand Canyon - its all very different, spread out and separate.

    One final point, Scottish Nationalism is strongly of the "civic" variety - ethno-nationalism is regarded as toxic by independence supporters; the current SNP Scottish government is seen as being much more leftwing than any other party in the UK, one which still believes in some form of "socialism" - and so if you are a "nationalist" and a "socialist" and you have many enemies in the media ... well, you can all see where this goes - an empty slur, shitty arse-rags like the Daily Telegraph have been trying to make stick for years.

    If the postal votes were mostly pro-Union old people how would tampering with them affect the result?

    The shitty economy killed Scottish independence. This vote should have been held a decade ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Hey John Derbyshire, take it from a native Southerner; when it comes to secession and the desire to be left alone, Uncle Sam does not play games.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. @Corvinus
    "Beyond any doubt. Have you contradicting evidence? Perhaps something, ah, synthetic a priori? Perhaps something verifiable? Perhaps some initial premise of prima facie categorical truth? Perhaps an undeniable absolute and universal truth?"

    I will say it again since you glossed over it. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in. Refer to Jesus calling of “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Refer to Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies. Furthermore, a number of people have attempted to invent their own morality and then impose it–Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind.

    In addition, "The murdering ofvvv mior race. There are central tenets ALL humans share in regards to morality such as give your children a loving home to grow up in and live your lives with dignity, and respect for yourself.

    "The statement “All moral standards are relative.” is NOT a moral standard, you ninny."

    You must take into account the ENTIRE premise--But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard. In other words, the claim states that the only RIGHT way to look at moral standards is basing it on the norms of a society. Any way to the contrary is other than right.

    "No, the evaluation of labor conditions remains a subjective quality recognized by the perceiver. The perceiver’s judgment is effected by the moral values his society observes."

    No. A person who seizes by force another person to work in a field against their will is engaging in clear immoral conduct. There is no "subjective quality" here. It is universally abhorred for a person to be physically taken away from their homeland, stripped of their dignity, and be subjected to violent reprisals if that he/she fails to toil for someone who claims to be their master. The values by which the labor conditions were created--the desire for workers in perpetual bondage--is patently wrong.

    "No. In true wage-slavery the worker is not free to leave — he or she must work or starve and be thrown out of labor housing; also he or she is indebted to the wage-slaver, and slavery-equivalent laws will enforce the requirement. Labor conditions that permit a “strike” are not wage-slavery."

    Not "true wage-slavery", just wage-slavery. The worker, who receives hourly wages for their toil, is able to leave whenever he/she wants. They are not bound by law to remain permanently employed by the factory owner. They may be required to give notice, but the worker can quit at any point in time. There is only "indebtedness" IF the worker had subjected himself to the rules of a company town where he/she was paid in script and had incurred expenses. Furthermore, workers have the freedom to collectively organize and make demands to the factory owner, who may accept or reject them.

    The slave has NO such liberty or options.

    "I’m told that RC priests tortured and killed Aztecs for failing to behave according to the moral standards the Spaniards insisted they adopt. Now, THAT is moral standards hard at work!"

    No, that is immorality at work--murder, torture, and destruction of one's culture.

    I will say it again since you glossed over it. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in.

    LOL, oh no, there are not. Stop making me laugh.

    Refer to Jesus calling of “love thy neighbor as thyself”.

    Refer to “Know thyself” and to “To thine own self be true.” as contrapositive. Be aware that EVERYTHING that Jesus is credited with is found in philosophy and social mores of cultures preceding Jesus and his Hebraic foundation. In fact, most of Hebraic theology that Jesus uses as preface to the new millennium is stolen from Zoroastrianism and re-cast as a Hebraic reformation.

    Refer to Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies.

    Well, sort of. The entire premise of practical Christianity is based on the omnipresent principle of reciprocity, with a teaser form of immortality thrown in.

    You must take into account the ENTIRE premise–But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard. In other words, the claim states that the only RIGHT way to look at moral standards is basing it on the norms of a society. Any way to the contrary is other than right.

    Um, right there you’re getting so stupid that I’m probably going to have to back away from discussion with you. Specifically, no, the statement that “all moral standards are relative” is NOT a proposition of an absolute moral standard. I can readily envision Ludwig Wittgenstein putting you over his knee and thwacking you with vigor for suggesting such nonsense.

    Looking over the rest of your nonsense … good lord, why would I bother? Good-bye.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    The joke is on you. There are universal and eternal principles regardless of the society one lives in.

    "In fact, most of Hebraic theology that Jesus uses as preface to the new millennium is stolen from Zoroastrianism and re-cast as a Hebraic reformation."

    Stolen? No, perhaps borrowed or influenced. But even religious scholars today debate the impact of Zoroastrianism on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

    "Specifically, no, the statement that “all moral standards are relative” is NOT a proposition of an absolute moral standard."

    Of course it is. The premise is clear in that EVERYONE OUGHT to realize that any and all moral standards are relative. That is, a person who insists that a moral standard is absolute is TOTALLY WRONG.

    "Looking over the rest of your nonsense … good lord, why would I bother? Good-bye."

    Exactly what I thought. Run, run away.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Wonder how Portugal, very much a land mass of Spain, managed to become a separate country?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Wonder how Portugal, very much a land mass of Spain, managed to become a separate country?
     
    It's the other way around. Portugal was the Roman colony on the Atlantic shore -- a waystation to Britain and Gaul. The rest of the Iberian peninsula was barbarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Truth says:
    @never commented before so why is this blocked
    I once read John Derbyshite writing on Scottish Nationalism - it was excrement - JD has no legitimate right to offer an opinion on it. Nor are we interested in trying to -impress- the likes of you, sir - why would we care?

    I like Unz, at times, but if its writers were Public Enemy, then JD would be Flavor Flav, most definitely.

    As for the referendum of 2014 in Scotland - some insider thoughts for anyone interested ...

    - it was offered in the first place because the unionists expected to win by a country MILE (- never offer the people a referendum if you cannot guarantee the outcome) - thus having been won by the union, the nationalists would have been "shut up" for a generation or so. That was the cunning plan.

    But the unionists ran a piss-poor media campaign full of unattractive has-beens who radiated complacency - their lead plummeted quickly - and this led to desperate measures, i.e. the referendum was rigged. This was done by flipping 200K postal votes, which is quite easy to do if the printers work for you. The snide votes were then spread around the counting centres.

    There was no rigging at the counts, forget all the stupid youtube videos that were about at the time.

    No one can prove this happened but the circumstantial evidence is deafening.

    There were anomalous voting patterns - strong SNP (nationalist) supporting areas voted NO, while at the time, remnant Labour (unionist) areas, voted YES. Work that one out. Or ask John Curtice, the resident psephologist - but no one ever did, or has. There were also lower turnouts in the areas which did vote YES - remember this was all about total votes, not constituencies or any of that nonsense.

    Notably, the postal votes were NOT counted separately, but mixed back in with the normal ballots at the counting centres. Let that one sink in ... then ask yourself why. (It means there can be no separate check of the postal votes, if you are struggling to keep up.)

    Ruth Davidson the conservative leader clearly knew the result on the night - before the count had even started - she claimed to have seen a sample of postal returns while on live television. This is against the law but the police "investigation" went nowhere. She should have been charged, the only evidence needed - a BBC videotape.

    It was admitted en passant that the postal votes held the victory - for the strongest support for the union was among pensioners ("seniors") ... and this is the group which overwhelmingly uses the postal ballot.

    There were other little "tells" - for example - photography was banned in the voting stations, supposedly to maintain anonymity - but what if you did all that rigging and then all these voters went and uploaded photos of their completed ballots onto social media - and then some clever geek wrote a program to count them all. That could be embarrassing.

    Exit polls were banned. No reason given.

    Opinion polls, in the end, turned out to be quite wrong - a strange phenomenon which has happened a lot, lately.

    The media narrative was inserted early, to provide easy explanation for this surprising victory (- opinion polls put YES slightly ahead on the weekend before) - Gordon Brown and media people parrotted endlessly about a "silent majority" and a "late surge". Rancid smells if ever there were.

    Scotland, being "white" (- there's no such thing!) and civilised, did not receive the courtesy of UN observers to ensure it was all "kosher" (- ahem, poor word choice here, my apologies). There is an absolute iron bias in UK media that all our elections are rigorously fair - no media person would ever be allowed to conceptualise about large scale rigging - such things only happen in "wog" countries, or North Korea, or Florida (where the dead vote twice, supposedly). So, whatever the ambient stink, no one will ever ask the question. It is outside the frame of the debate, or the overton window ... the civilised limits of public discourse, whatever.

    That's my "tuppence" (2 cents) about Scotland FYI, as for the essay in general - it seems to be a meandering search for some generalised theory of nationalism, without a strong conclusion, just a pretty weak joke. Even the comments are all over the place.

    The terms trans-nationalism and sub-nationalism do not seem useful, conceptually - lets leave the making-up-of-words to the genderqueer bicurious transracial snowflakes.

    I found the spectacle of Spanish police trying to physically stop voting and even remove ballot boxes, interesting from the perspective of potential fraud - it implies the Spanish lacked the means to rig the vote, and thus they were scared. Next time, we Scots need to ask the Catalans for some technical advice.

    But I really know nothing of Catalonia (I read Orwell but so what?), its history or independence movement and so I will - speak nothing more of it. But I will say this - comparisons are likely to be very misleading and unhelpful, between Scotland and Catalonia, even Scotland and Ireland. As for the idea of the USA splitting up, it probably will, someday, probably 6 separate nations - on my only visit it seemed to be about 6 separate entities cobbled together. You do not need to look for the fault lines - your last election exposed them worse than the Grand Canyon - its all very different, spread out and separate.

    One final point, Scottish Nationalism is strongly of the "civic" variety - ethno-nationalism is regarded as toxic by independence supporters; the current SNP Scottish government is seen as being much more leftwing than any other party in the UK, one which still believes in some form of "socialism" - and so if you are a "nationalist" and a "socialist" and you have many enemies in the media ... well, you can all see where this goes - an empty slur, shitty arse-rags like the Daily Telegraph have been trying to make stick for years.

    I like Unz, at times, but if its writers were Public Enemy, then JD would be Flavor Flav, most definitely.

    LMFAO!

    It’s too bad that one went over you guy’s heads. It was almost ridiculously funny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Miro23

    I’m currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don’t even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington’s boot from between my shoulder blades.
     
    You wouldn't win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:

    Tenth Amendment

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
     

    So go back to the original idea, and mostly RAISE TAXES LOCALLY AND SPEND THEM LOCALLY. Combine this with the removal of the Washington/FED right to create credit and the removal of most Presidential powers and that's the end of Washington.

    And BTW you could also change the name of the "United States" to the "Confederation of American States" or "American Confederation" in recognition of the fact that states don' t have to be united, but could still respect each other's decisions and differences of opinion.

    Let Texas be Texas and California be California.

    It's also a useful way to stop foreign military adventures, since local voters would have to discuss the issue beforehand, budget for the expense and raise a special tax.

    You wouldn’t win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:

    If States Rights are respected, as they should be, and should have been, there would be, and would not have been any desire or reason for separation.

    Read More
    • Agree: Miro23
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Anonymous
    Is America a nation?

    It is a country, but to call it a nation seems a bit too far.

    Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common.

    Nothing.

    They have Federal Reserve Notes in common. That’s about all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. songbird says:
    @PeteO2
    “But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians [ How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland, Chicago Tribune, July 92006] the cab drivers are all Polish; and the current Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, is an open homosexual whose father was an Indian born in Bombay.”

    If this piece about nationalism or racism?

    An Irish citizen of Polish or Indian background is Irish. His/her nation is Ireland.

    A Pole could conceivably become Irish in time. It is absurd to call an Indian or black or Muslim Irish merely for residing there. What loyalty do they have? Absolutely none – actually worse than none. They are colonists. An African in Africa or an Indian in India doesn’t particularly give a fig about Ireland. A typical “Irish” black or Indian wants to destroy Irishness, to open up the floodgates and makes whites a minority there. To make the culture multicultural, to import all their cousins. To denigrate whites and to discriminate against them, and take their tax money, all while keeping their own countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Adolph Hitler held the most sensible view on citizenship by stating that only Germans, (meaning individuals possessing proven Germanic bloodline) could become citizens of Germany. Postulating further that rather than having citizenship granted automatically at birth, qualified individuals could earn citizenship only after achieving the age of maturity and only after successfully completing various physical and scholastic test proving themselves worthy of German citizenship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Carroll Price
    Wonder how Portugal, very much a land mass of Spain, managed to become a separate country?

    Wonder how Portugal, very much a land mass of Spain, managed to become a separate country?

    It’s the other way around. Portugal was the Roman colony on the Atlantic shore — a waystation to Britain and Gaul. The rest of the Iberian peninsula was barbarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Corvinus
    "How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously wrong but it doesn’t automatically mean that the SJW trope “slaves were generally abused by their masters” is true."

    "I never said that. I was talking about modern day, “free market” hard minimum wage work for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery."

    Again, how would you feel if your family was ripped from their homeland and forced to serve someone without compensation?

    "Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations."

    There are several instances today of slavery. Please educate yourself.

    http://www.alliesagainstslavery.org/slavery/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIje7jg4Tl1gIVGrnACh1kDwcoEAAYASAAEgITE_D_BwE

    Furthermore, you ASSUME that biological differences between people leads to those groups of people being other than able to to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

    "I know that it’s taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism)."

    So, how much influence ought they have? What is the magic number here? Why are some whites obsessed with their supposed disparate impact on American government and culture? Are white people today really being bamboozled by Jews?

    Other than Africa, where it’s existed since the dawn of recorded history, and still exist today, slavery has existed no where else for more than 140 years. With that being the case, why the preoccupation with slavery?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @RadicalCenter
    Mblanc, you're entirely correct, unfortunately. English is being supplemented, and gradually supplanted, by Spanish, and it's not just in our biggest cities. Not at all.

    Here in southern California, we can drive twenty or fifty or even eighty miles away from LA and still sometimes have a hard time finding people who speak/understand English well enough to make small talk, understand a simple joke, get to know each other even at a basic level, etc. We have had this experience regularly in Riverside, San Bernardino, and to a lesser extent in Bakersfield, all pretty far from LA.

    Spanish is a wonderful language we should all learn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    A lot of wonderful languages. I enjoy picking which one to learn, not "needing" to know another one in what was my own country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @RadicalCenter
    I'm starting to wonder whether you are right, Ghost. Sad as it would be to me an American -- and as a California resident who is having a blast here despite the expense and hassles -- California secession might benefit the USA on balance.

    An independent California -- without the slightly moderating effect of the other States -- will completely ban private gun ownership (with a concomitant increase in violent crime and property crime) and increase both spending and taxes at a higher rate than they have been doing. All in fairly short order.

    On top of the higher taxes and the helplessness of not being "allowed" to defend oneself with a gun, add another factor that would push many of the remaining white people to flee CA: racial violence targeting whites and tolerated / ignored by the police on a regular basis (we already saw this happening to Trump supporters at rallies in CA and elsewhere last year, and it can explode into a South Africa-type situation without the rest of the country holding CA's angry & constantly-propagandized anti-white majority back).

    For a while, California may "make it work", in budgetary terms, by scrimping on its national defense in order to pay for its endless government-program wish list. I'll bet they would spend almost nothing on defense. Eventually that would attract the unwelcome attentions of China or some other major power.

    If the San Andres Fault were to open and separate California from the mainland, would it not then become a foreign nation by default?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    No.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Corvinus
    [Laughs] Your murdering of the facts exceeds any Jew body count.

    Let's go back to a hanging chad. You had made this claim--Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.

    Per usual, rather than specifically address your claim, you bolted. The more you avoid offering relevant evidence in support, the more you are engaging in deception.

    Let us also address another hanging chad, that being your insistence that “In the US there are studies that claim that less than 4% of white southerners owned slaves, but over 40% of southern jews owned slaves. I always remember walking around the main southern slaving port (Charleston). The big stone mansions of the (jewish) slave traders are on the water front, the wooden mansions of the wealthy whites are a bit further inland and the shanty towns of the blacks are still further inland – to this day.”

    Dr. Malcolm Stern investigated the 1790 manuscript census returns of South Carolina. He noted seventy-three heads of households were identified as Jewish. Out of this number, thirty-four owned one or more slaves, to a total of 151 slaves. The only large holdings of slaves were possessed by one family from Charleston (11), and three families from Georgetown consisting of 21, 11, and 9 slaves.
    Jews generally lived in urban areas, so it is other than surprising that they had one or two domestic slaves. 34/73 = 46.6%, which compares to an ownership rate of 34.2% in all South Carolina households in 1790. Note that those 34 Jewish slave-owning households were out of 8,859 total slave-owning households in South Carolina in 1790; that would mean Jews were 0.4% of slave owners here. Furthermore, one could argue that the reason why wealthy Jews owned slaves similar to wealthy non-Jews was due to their shared belief in desiring a lifestyle free from domestic work. In other words, both groups displayed their riches by having slaves take care of the household to enable these groups to enjoy a leisurely lifestyle.

    As non-tillers of the soil (then and now) Jews were primarily involved in the slave trade at every level from owning and out-fitting the ships bound for Africa, down to selling slaves at local slave markets, which by the way, were traditionally closed on Jewish holidays. Jewish ownership of slaves was therefore transient in nature. Speculation on how many slaves one particular Jew might own at any moment in time, would be like speculation on how many cars a used car salesman owns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "As non-tillers of the soil (then and now) Jews were primarily involved in the slave trade at every level from owning and out-fitting the ships bound for Africa, down to selling slaves at local slave markets, which by the way, were traditionally closed on Jewish holidays."

    Involved, yes, along with numerous other groups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Norwegians/Swedes, Portuguese/Spaniards, Dutchmen/Germans = sailors/farmers

    Different culture, different economy, different nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  162. Corvinus says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I will say it again since you glossed over it. There are universal and eternal principles involved here regardless of the society one lives in.
     
    LOL, oh no, there are not. Stop making me laugh.

    Refer to Jesus calling of “love thy neighbor as thyself”.
     
    Refer to "Know thyself" and to "To thine own self be true." as contrapositive. Be aware that EVERYTHING that Jesus is credited with is found in philosophy and social mores of cultures preceding Jesus and his Hebraic foundation. In fact, most of Hebraic theology that Jesus uses as preface to the new millennium is stolen from Zoroastrianism and re-cast as a Hebraic reformation.

    Refer to Whatever the ‘subjective’ cultural differences, the same objective moral principle applies.
     
    Well, sort of. The entire premise of practical Christianity is based on the omnipresent principle of reciprocity, with a teaser form of immortality thrown in.

    You must take into account the ENTIRE premise–But “all moral standards are relative” proposes an absolute moral standard. In other words, the claim states that the only RIGHT way to look at moral standards is basing it on the norms of a society. Any way to the contrary is other than right.
     
    Um, right there you're getting so stupid that I'm probably going to have to back away from discussion with you. Specifically, no, the statement that "all moral standards are relative" is NOT a proposition of an absolute moral standard. I can readily envision Ludwig Wittgenstein putting you over his knee and thwacking you with vigor for suggesting such nonsense.

    Looking over the rest of your nonsense ... good lord, why would I bother? Good-bye.

    The joke is on you. There are universal and eternal principles regardless of the society one lives in.

    “In fact, most of Hebraic theology that Jesus uses as preface to the new millennium is stolen from Zoroastrianism and re-cast as a Hebraic reformation.”

    Stolen? No, perhaps borrowed or influenced. But even religious scholars today debate the impact of Zoroastrianism on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

    “Specifically, no, the statement that “all moral standards are relative” is NOT a proposition of an absolute moral standard.”

    Of course it is. The premise is clear in that EVERYONE OUGHT to realize that any and all moral standards are relative. That is, a person who insists that a moral standard is absolute is TOTALLY WRONG.

    “Looking over the rest of your nonsense … good lord, why would I bother? Good-bye.”

    Exactly what I thought. Run, run away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price

    Of course it is. The premise is clear in that EVERYONE OUGHT to realize that any and all moral standards are relative. That is, a person who insists that a moral standard is absolute is TOTALLY WRONG.
     
    If this is indeed true, then, by your own admission, human slavery was not always necessarily immoral to individuals who practiced it. An admission which when considered in light of earlier adamant positions taken on human slavery, comes as somewhat of a surprise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Corvinus says:
    @Carroll Price
    As non-tillers of the soil (then and now) Jews were primarily involved in the slave trade at every level from owning and out-fitting the ships bound for Africa, down to selling slaves at local slave markets, which by the way, were traditionally closed on Jewish holidays. Jewish ownership of slaves was therefore transient in nature. Speculation on how many slaves one particular Jew might own at any moment in time, would be like speculation on how many cars a used car salesman owns.

    “As non-tillers of the soil (then and now) Jews were primarily involved in the slave trade at every level from owning and out-fitting the ships bound for Africa, down to selling slaves at local slave markets, which by the way, were traditionally closed on Jewish holidays.”

    Involved, yes, along with numerous other groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Jews were involved with the slave trade on about the same level Jews are involved with Wall Street. Which is to say, they owned it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Truth says:
    @Jake
    And we are in this position because the wrong side won. Mr. Lincoln's war and anti-secession party made Negroes the nation's sacred cows.

    If that is not undone, the America that survives will be a totalitarian hellhole.

    That may, or may not have been the case, but the “wrong” side did win. History cannot be rewritten. And as far a sacred cows, in a country where %13 of the population makes up %50 of the prison population, “sacred” just don’t mean what it used to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Corvinus
    "As non-tillers of the soil (then and now) Jews were primarily involved in the slave trade at every level from owning and out-fitting the ships bound for Africa, down to selling slaves at local slave markets, which by the way, were traditionally closed on Jewish holidays."

    Involved, yes, along with numerous other groups.

    Jews were involved with the slave trade on about the same level Jews are involved with Wall Street. Which is to say, they owned it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @songbird
    A Pole could conceivably become Irish in time. It is absurd to call an Indian or black or Muslim Irish merely for residing there. What loyalty do they have? Absolutely none - actually worse than none. They are colonists. An African in Africa or an Indian in India doesn't particularly give a fig about Ireland. A typical "Irish" black or Indian wants to destroy Irishness, to open up the floodgates and makes whites a minority there. To make the culture multicultural, to import all their cousins. To denigrate whites and to discriminate against them, and take their tax money, all while keeping their own countries.

    Adolph Hitler held the most sensible view on citizenship by stating that only Germans, (meaning individuals possessing proven Germanic bloodline) could become citizens of Germany. Postulating further that rather than having citizenship granted automatically at birth, qualified individuals could earn citizenship only after achieving the age of maturity and only after successfully completing various physical and scholastic test proving themselves worthy of German citizenship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Corvinus
    The joke is on you. There are universal and eternal principles regardless of the society one lives in.

    "In fact, most of Hebraic theology that Jesus uses as preface to the new millennium is stolen from Zoroastrianism and re-cast as a Hebraic reformation."

    Stolen? No, perhaps borrowed or influenced. But even religious scholars today debate the impact of Zoroastrianism on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

    "Specifically, no, the statement that “all moral standards are relative” is NOT a proposition of an absolute moral standard."

    Of course it is. The premise is clear in that EVERYONE OUGHT to realize that any and all moral standards are relative. That is, a person who insists that a moral standard is absolute is TOTALLY WRONG.

    "Looking over the rest of your nonsense … good lord, why would I bother? Good-bye."

    Exactly what I thought. Run, run away.

    Of course it is. The premise is clear in that EVERYONE OUGHT to realize that any and all moral standards are relative. That is, a person who insists that a moral standard is absolute is TOTALLY WRONG.

    If this is indeed true, then, by your own admission, human slavery was not always necessarily immoral to individuals who practiced it. An admission which when considered in light of earlier adamant positions taken on human slavery, comes as somewhat of a surprise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "If this is indeed true, then, by your own admission, human slavery was not always necessarily immoral to individuals who practiced it."

    Of course those who engaged in slavery personally believed it was other than immoral. Why wouldn't they since they are in control of matters? But, since you seemingly are a fan of slavery, why don't you sell yourself, your wife, and your children into this wonderful institution. It's everything you hoped it will be and more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Corvinus says:

    “Jews were involved with the slave trade on about the same level Jews are involved with Wall Street. Which is to say, they owned it.”

    According to the research of Eli Faber, Jews did NOT play a leading role as the financial backers or transporters in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades. For starters, no ship fitted out for the slave trade that originated in Great Britain was under the direct or indirect control of a Jew. From 1709-1807, there are 934 recorded voyages in which Rhode Island merchants were responsible for procuring 106,000 slaves. Now, Jews arrived in Newport as early as 1758. On the eve of the Revolution, they were estimated to be around thirty families. According to historical records Faber used (e.g. naval office shipping lists, censuses, tax records) that identified merchants and planters as Jewish, there were 347 slave ships sent to Africa by Rhode Island slave traders from 1761-1774, with 21 being funded by Aaron Lopez, a Portuguese Jew. That means 326 voyages were underwritten by non-Jews during this time frame. Of course, Jews played a role in the peddling of human flesh. The extent in this particular case is nominal compared to other ethnic groups. Of course, one has to take into serious consideration the other northern ports that imported slaves as well as their ethnicity. Rhode Island is only part of the overall picture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    I would suggest reviewing a series of videos (on U-tube) produced by TV host Tony Martin during the early 1980s on the role Jews played in the international and US slave trade. Many New England Jewish families today owe their immense inherited wealth directly to the slave trade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Corvinus says:
    @Carroll Price

    Of course it is. The premise is clear in that EVERYONE OUGHT to realize that any and all moral standards are relative. That is, a person who insists that a moral standard is absolute is TOTALLY WRONG.
     
    If this is indeed true, then, by your own admission, human slavery was not always necessarily immoral to individuals who practiced it. An admission which when considered in light of earlier adamant positions taken on human slavery, comes as somewhat of a surprise.

    “If this is indeed true, then, by your own admission, human slavery was not always necessarily immoral to individuals who practiced it.”

    Of course those who engaged in slavery personally believed it was other than immoral. Why wouldn’t they since they are in control of matters? But, since you seemingly are a fan of slavery, why don’t you sell yourself, your wife, and your children into this wonderful institution. It’s everything you hoped it will be and more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Then, by your own admission Southern slave owners were not the evil creatures they're depicted by the Hollywood establishment to have been. Of course, most mentally mature adults already knew that, but thanks for stating it in a most elegant manner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Corvinus
    "If this is indeed true, then, by your own admission, human slavery was not always necessarily immoral to individuals who practiced it."

    Of course those who engaged in slavery personally believed it was other than immoral. Why wouldn't they since they are in control of matters? But, since you seemingly are a fan of slavery, why don't you sell yourself, your wife, and your children into this wonderful institution. It's everything you hoped it will be and more.

    Then, by your own admission Southern slave owners were not the evil creatures they’re depicted by the Hollywood establishment to have been. Of course, most mentally mature adults already knew that, but thanks for stating it in a most elegant manner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    I was being sarcastic. But feel free to sell yourself in the reboot of this "peculiar institution".

    http://www.endslaverynow.org/learn/modern-slave-narratives
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Corvinus
    "Jews were involved with the slave trade on about the same level Jews are involved with Wall Street. Which is to say, they owned it."

    According to the research of Eli Faber, Jews did NOT play a leading role as the financial backers or transporters in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades. For starters, no ship fitted out for the slave trade that originated in Great Britain was under the direct or indirect control of a Jew. From 1709-1807, there are 934 recorded voyages in which Rhode Island merchants were responsible for procuring 106,000 slaves. Now, Jews arrived in Newport as early as 1758. On the eve of the Revolution, they were estimated to be around thirty families. According to historical records Faber used (e.g. naval office shipping lists, censuses, tax records) that identified merchants and planters as Jewish, there were 347 slave ships sent to Africa by Rhode Island slave traders from 1761-1774, with 21 being funded by Aaron Lopez, a Portuguese Jew. That means 326 voyages were underwritten by non-Jews during this time frame. Of course, Jews played a role in the peddling of human flesh. The extent in this particular case is nominal compared to other ethnic groups. Of course, one has to take into serious consideration the other northern ports that imported slaves as well as their ethnicity. Rhode Island is only part of the overall picture.

    I would suggest reviewing a series of videos (on U-tube) produced by TV host Tony Martin during the early 1980s on the role Jews played in the international and US slave trade. Many New England Jewish families today owe their immense inherited wealth directly to the slave trade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I would suggest reviewing a series of videos (on U-tube) produced by TV host Tony Martin during the early 1980s on the role Jews played in the international and US slave trade."

    I would suggest you address the points I made in Comment 168. While there is merit to Martin’s work, there are also significant holes in his scholarship. For example, Junius Rodriguez (The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, 1997) referenced…

    “A few Jews even became prominent slave owning planters in the Old South…as successful as these Jewish Southerners were by Southern standards, they represent a very tiny percentage of the 20,000 Jews residing in the antebellum South who could, or would, ever aspire to own a slave. About 5,000 Jews owned one or more slaves – about 1.25 percent of all the slaveowners in the antebellum South…For those Jews who did own slaves, the records demonstrate that they were not significantly different from other masters in their treatments of their bondsmen.”

    Note that the antebellum period covers the period before the Civil War, 1820-1860.

    If we account for all other factors, it ends up there is no statistically significant difference between Jews and the overall population in terms of slave ownership, especially since levels of slave ownership varied in southern states and southern cities. For example, this source
    (forward.com/articles/205455/slaves-of-charleston/?p=all) notes that in 1830 the proportion of Jewish residents of Charleston who owned slaves was similar to that of the general white population (83% versus 87%).

    Now, some would argue that these numbers are meaningless since they neglect to account for any other difference in demographics besides religion. For example, poorer families were less likely to own slaves than wealthier families. Would not purchasing slaves be a sign of one’s ethnic display of superiority or because of the family’s wealth, or both?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. DanC says:

    Well, the Californian secessionists are taking heart from Catalonia, and they actually have a pretty good political and legal strategy for seceding successfully:

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article178435876.html#0

    Or, it would be a good strategy if they actually had majority support for secession . . . There is this nagging little problem that the majority of people in California don’t actually favor secession and would vote no . . . but then when has not having popular support ever stopped leftists from going ahead and doing what they want anyhow?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  173. Corvinus says:
    @Carroll Price
    Then, by your own admission Southern slave owners were not the evil creatures they're depicted by the Hollywood establishment to have been. Of course, most mentally mature adults already knew that, but thanks for stating it in a most elegant manner.

    I was being sarcastic. But feel free to sell yourself in the reboot of this “peculiar institution”.

    http://www.endslaverynow.org/learn/modern-slave-narratives

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Southern slave owners "didn’t build that", they just happened to be born in the South and have a little money.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/buddhist-leader-spreads-hatred-of-muslims-in-myanmar-1507806002

    Buddhist Leader Spreads Hatred of Muslims in Myanmar
    With army’s blessing, the Ven. Wirathu stokes public support for purge of ethnic Rohingya
    By James Hookway
    Oct. 12, 2017 7:00 a.m. ET
    HPA-AN, Myanmar—The Venerable Wirathu hitched up his orange robes, stepped up onto a stage on a recent Sunday and tapped the microphone.

    “What kind of people are these Muslims?” he barked as a crowd of 1,000 in this small town east of Yangon cheered him on. “Do they eat rice through their backsides and excrete through their mouths? They are the opposite of everything in nature.”

     

    Buddhists don't believe in free will, neither do any Western scientists (though many think belief in it is a beneficial illusion). So what is "evil" if the good is not true?
    , @Carroll Price
    I'm way past the age to join the military, which is the nearest present thing to the "peculiar institution" here in the US. With slavery by the way, being far from a peculiar institution then or now. At present, an estimated 15 million humans continue living under slavery, with the vast majority confined to the continent of Africa, where it's been a common practice since the dawn of recorded history and long before. Since slavery is apparently your hot-button, I suggest you concentrate your concerns and efforts on the one area of the world where it continues to be practiced on a large scale. Along with female genital mutilation which also (like slavery) traces it's origin to Black Africa where it's still practiced today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Corvinus says:
    @Carroll Price
    I would suggest reviewing a series of videos (on U-tube) produced by TV host Tony Martin during the early 1980s on the role Jews played in the international and US slave trade. Many New England Jewish families today owe their immense inherited wealth directly to the slave trade.

    “I would suggest reviewing a series of videos (on U-tube) produced by TV host Tony Martin during the early 1980s on the role Jews played in the international and US slave trade.”

    I would suggest you address the points I made in Comment 168. While there is merit to Martin’s work, there are also significant holes in his scholarship. For example, Junius Rodriguez (The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, 1997) referenced…

    “A few Jews even became prominent slave owning planters in the Old South…as successful as these Jewish Southerners were by Southern standards, they represent a very tiny percentage of the 20,000 Jews residing in the antebellum South who could, or would, ever aspire to own a slave. About 5,000 Jews owned one or more slaves – about 1.25 percent of all the slaveowners in the antebellum South…For those Jews who did own slaves, the records demonstrate that they were not significantly different from other masters in their treatments of their bondsmen.”

    Note that the antebellum period covers the period before the Civil War, 1820-1860.

    If we account for all other factors, it ends up there is no statistically significant difference between Jews and the overall population in terms of slave ownership, especially since levels of slave ownership varied in southern states and southern cities. For example, this source
    (forward.com/articles/205455/slaves-of-charleston/?p=all) notes that in 1830 the proportion of Jewish residents of Charleston who owned slaves was similar to that of the general white population (83% versus 87%).

    Now, some would argue that these numbers are meaningless since they neglect to account for any other difference in demographics besides religion. For example, poorer families were less likely to own slaves than wealthier families. Would not purchasing slaves be a sign of one’s ethnic display of superiority or because of the family’s wealth, or both?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Sean says:
    @yeah
    I wouldn't write-off religion so easily. History has never been a linear process; times of affluence and want, times of security and strife, have all come and gone repeatedly, but religion has stayed on. Religion is a multi-faceted thing, answering to different peoples' different and inner-most needs. Yes, it is massively on the retreat in the west, but so it has in other historical periods. Expect it to bounce back - for better or worse is a different topic. In a way the most anti-religion people - communists, identity warriors, empiricists, and others, have tended to believe so absolutely in their own viewpoints that such belief is tantamount to the blind belief of traditional religions. Real atheism to me is the ability to suspend judgment and belief except when the evidence is strong enough to knock one down. To trade one set of dogmas with another does not constitute movement.

    Nor would I write-off nationalism so easily. Some variety of it is inherent in all social animals, whether it is allegiance to the pack, or to the tribe, or to the city, or to one's group, or to some other grouping. A new kind of nationalism is very much alive and thriving today: the transnationalism of the globalists and the elites. They see themselves as citizens of the world and the world as their oyster. The counter-reaction to that is already setting of revivals of various kinds of nationalisms of the traditional kind, sub-nationalisms of the tribal sort, and group mentalities of all kinds. War or no war, nationalism in various forms and mutations will endure if we go by human history.

    Myanmar (the worlds only Buddhist country) shows that you cannot really separate nationalism from religion. War between countries is obsolete in the West ,and the rest of the developed world has no intention of fighting when the West is opening up to them.

    The enemy of Western elites are the militarily and economically redundant masses, and immigration is a class war on the redundant mass. The immigrants are a political counterweight and maybe a reserve army for any popular uprising.. In Myanmar the native masses are still needed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The enemy of Western elites are the militarily and economically redundant masses, and immigration is a class war on the redundant mass. The immigrants are a political counterweight and maybe a reserve army for any popular uprising.
     
    Agree.
    Don't believe in 'popular uprising', but the rest is, IMHO, spot on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Sean says:
    @Corvinus
    I was being sarcastic. But feel free to sell yourself in the reboot of this "peculiar institution".

    http://www.endslaverynow.org/learn/modern-slave-narratives

    Southern slave owners “didn’t build that”, they just happened to be born in the South and have a little money.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/buddhist-leader-spreads-hatred-of-muslims-in-myanmar-1507806002

    Buddhist Leader Spreads Hatred of Muslims in Myanmar
    With army’s blessing, the Ven. Wirathu stokes public support for purge of ethnic Rohingya
    By James Hookway
    Oct. 12, 2017 7:00 a.m. ET
    HPA-AN, Myanmar—The Venerable Wirathu hitched up his orange robes, stepped up onto a stage on a recent Sunday and tapped the microphone.

    “What kind of people are these Muslims?” he barked as a crowd of 1,000 in this small town east of Yangon cheered him on. “Do they eat rice through their backsides and excrete through their mouths? They are the opposite of everything in nature.”

    Buddhists don’t believe in free will, neither do any Western scientists (though many think belief in it is a beneficial illusion). So what is “evil” if the good is not true?

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    Myanmar is uncle sham's next balkanising proj.

    The WARsj etc are dutifully doing its usual hatchet job , manufacturing pretext for another R2P[lunder] intervention.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. peterAUS says:
    @Sean
    Myanmar (the worlds only Buddhist country) shows that you cannot really separate nationalism from religion. War between countries is obsolete in the West ,and the rest of the developed world has no intention of fighting when the West is opening up to them.

    The enemy of Western elites are the militarily and economically redundant masses, and immigration is a class war on the redundant mass. The immigrants are a political counterweight and maybe a reserve army for any popular uprising.. In Myanmar the native masses are still needed.

    The enemy of Western elites are the militarily and economically redundant masses, and immigration is a class war on the redundant mass. The immigrants are a political counterweight and maybe a reserve army for any popular uprising.

    Agree.
    Don’t believe in ‘popular uprising’, but the rest is, IMHO, spot on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/


    In September 2013, two Oxford researchers, Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, published “The Future of Employment,” in which they surveyed the likelihood of different professions being taken over by computer algorithms within the next 20 years, and they estimated that 47 percent of US jobs are at high risk. For example, there is a 99 percent probability that by 2033 human telemarketers and insurance underwriters will lose their jobs to algorithms. There is a 98 percent probability that the same will happen to sports referees. Cashiers — 97 percent. Chefs — 96 percent. Waiters — 94 percent. Paralegals — 94 percent. Tour guides — 91 percent. Bakers — 89 percent. Bus drivers — 89 percent. Construction laborers — 88 percent. Veterinary assistants — 86 percent. Security guards — 84 percent. Sailors — 83 percent. Bartenders — 77 percent. Archivists — 76 percent. Carpenters — 72 percent. Lifeguards — 67 percent [,,,]

    The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?.
     

    Quite a lot will prefer to fight, and die.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. A balkanization of USA is precisely what Obama, Hillary and one enemy country want, then the new nations formed would join that other nation (supposedly a “friend nation). All people pushing for massive immigration and open borders want that California and other States separate from USA. It is quite obvious , only brainless people dont see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. @Corvinus
    I was being sarcastic. But feel free to sell yourself in the reboot of this "peculiar institution".

    http://www.endslaverynow.org/learn/modern-slave-narratives

    I’m way past the age to join the military, which is the nearest present thing to the “peculiar institution” here in the US. With slavery by the way, being far from a peculiar institution then or now. At present, an estimated 15 million humans continue living under slavery, with the vast majority confined to the continent of Africa, where it’s been a common practice since the dawn of recorded history and long before. Since slavery is apparently your hot-button, I suggest you concentrate your concerns and efforts on the one area of the world where it continues to be practiced on a large scale. Along with female genital mutilation which also (like slavery) traces it’s origin to Black Africa where it’s still practiced today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I’m way past the age to join the military, which is the nearest present thing to the “peculiar institution” here in the US."

    The military is a voluntary institution. A person chooses to join and be "owned".

    "At present, an estimated 15 million humans continue living under slavery, with the vast majority confined to the continent of Africa, where it’s been a common practice since the dawn of recorded history and long before."

    Slavery has been and continues to be found on every continent. I suggest you concentrate your concerns and efforts on humankind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Michael Kenny
    Why not California, Texas or New England? Maybe, but not on par with Catalonia. European nationalism is ethnic. Each ethnic group is entitled to have its own sovereign nation-state: the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, the Crimean Tatars, the Basques, the Catalans, the Corsicans, the Ukrainians, the Kosovo Albanians, the Czechs, the Slovaks etc. That’s the whole point of the EU: to allow the numerous small nations of Europe to have their own nation-state without either being conquered by more powerful neighbours or slaughtering each other at regular intervals. That’s why the Catalans (like the Scots) are not seeking to leave the EU but simply to become full Member States. Such a concept of nationalism is impossible on the American continent because all the sovereign states are multi-ethnic products of European colonialism. We Europeans, the “original” whites, are the indigenous people of our own territories. We are not the descendants of colonists who invaded other people’s countries and squatted there. Thus, there’s no reason why California, Texas or New England shouldn’t be independent if they want to be but that has nothing to do with the European concepts of nationalism and the nation-state. For all the above reasons, Mr Derbyshire’s idea of a worldwide “nationalist international” is a contradiction in terms. Nationalism means different things in different parts of the world. As Mr D likes to say, that’s why we have different countries! Regional groupings of closely-related ethnic groups, such as the EU, seem to work quite well and the EU has certainly kept the peace and made it feasible for further European ethnic groups to obtain their own nation-states (notwithstanding 45 years of American attempts to destroy it!). But worldwide? Not yet. Maybe in a few centuries, by which time the American continent will be inhabited by Spanish-speaking, mixed race Catholics all of whom will look like Lester Holt!
    By the way, Catalonia is in the north-eastern corner of Spain.

    European nationalism is ethnic. Each ethnic group is entitled to have its own sovereign nation-state: the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, the Crimean Tatars, the Basques, the Catalans, the Corsicans, the Ukrainians, the Kosovo Albanians, the Czechs, the Slovaks etc.

    1. “European nationalism is ethnic”.
    That’s just your interpretation of the status quo, based on your experience of travelling the towns and cities of the EU with your ears plugged and your eyes closed.

    2. “Each ethnic group is entitled…”
    Again, only in your opinion. In reality, the EU has no authority to offer that “entitlement” and no power to enforce it. It could only be offered by the existing nation-states in which those ethnic groups reside. Few, if any, of those nations would be willing to do so.

    It is already clear that Spain will not allow Catalonia the unilateral right to break up the integrity of the Spanish nation-state. Nor will Britain delegate to Scottish voters a similar right which is properly that of the British nation.

    2. I defend your right as a globalist EU ideologue to to indulge in such ethno-nationalist fantasies.

    3. But which ethnic group would you nominate to occupy the sovereign nation-state of London?

    Hint: so far this year, the most popular name for male babies born in London has been…
    But do I need to tell you? And, no, it is not “Sadiq”. He’s just the elected City mayor.

    That’s the whole point of the EU: to allow the numerous small nations of Europe to have their own nation-state without either being conquered by more powerful neighbours or slaughtering each other at regular intervals.

    The “whole point of the EU” is to progressively weaken the the sovereign nation-state in order to create “an ever-closer union”, until you have a supra-national, federal United States of Europe, with a single currency and economic policies, a single foreign policy, a single European military, etc. Probably also an interlocking transnational-security structure to spy on its own citizens, as the US deep state spies on Americans.

    You do know about the “Kalergi Plan”, don’t you? If so, you will know that its aim was to abolish the ethnicities you pretend to value in exchange for a new melting-pot European race in which all are “people of colour”. That’s not a “racist” point; it is what Coudenhove-Kalergi explicitly argued for. It has had influential supporters among the EU power elites. But don’t expect them to talk about it in public.

    You surely must also have heard of Peter Sutherland’s view that the European nations should give up their nationalist “homogeneity” by embracing the mass immigration of “refugees”.

    That’s why the Catalans (like the Scots) are not seeking to leave the EU but simply to become full Member States.

    No, that’s not the reason. It is because they expect to gain more generous subsidies than they receive as small countries or as regions of their existing nation-states. They know the rule is that the richer nations in the EU (Germany, Britain, etc.) pay more to subsidise the poorer ones (Ireland, Romania, etc.), while encouraging people from the poorer regions to migrate to the richer ones (leaving the poorer ones in need of increasing subsidy). That feeling of economic dependence on the super-state is the cement that binds the the nations of Europe, as it does any “socialist” super-state which offers to be generous with other people’s earnings.

    Regional groupings of closely-related ethnic groups, such as the EU, seem to work quite well and the EU has certainly kept the peace and made it feasible for further European ethnic groups to obtain their own nation-states…

    They “seem to work quite well”. Until they don’t.

    “The EU has certainly kept the peace…”. The EU ideologues have been peddling that myth from the start. If there has been peace in Europe since the creation of the Common Market, it is not because of the EU but because Germany has not attempted to start another war. (And why would they need to, having gained so much from the settlement they won after losing the last war?)

    However, Merkel almost started one with Russia by conspiring with the Obama administration to overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine and try to bring it into NATO and the EU. Apparently they have succeeded, as you seem to have decided, on behalf of the Ukraine, that it is now a “European nationalism”.

    …(notwithstanding 45 years of American attempts to destroy it!).

    You’ve made that claim before, with no evidence to make it credible. The truth is that every US administration from LBJ’s to Obama’s has been in favour of the “European project”and determined to keep Britain in it. Understandably so, if it means that the US does not again have to sacrifice its own people to defend Europeans in another major war, and if it means that there is a continental “buffer zone” between America and Russia. Why would they feel any need to destroy it?

    Donald Trump is the only president I know of who has ever questioned the pro-EU orthodoxy. But then, another political myth you pretend to believe is that Trump is “in collusion” with Vlad Putin, (the evil wizard of the Russiagate galaxy), and is trying to enforce his nationalism and his dark American First Amendment rights upon the people of Europe, against the wishes of their enlightened leaders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Corvinus says:
    @Carroll Price
    I'm way past the age to join the military, which is the nearest present thing to the "peculiar institution" here in the US. With slavery by the way, being far from a peculiar institution then or now. At present, an estimated 15 million humans continue living under slavery, with the vast majority confined to the continent of Africa, where it's been a common practice since the dawn of recorded history and long before. Since slavery is apparently your hot-button, I suggest you concentrate your concerns and efforts on the one area of the world where it continues to be practiced on a large scale. Along with female genital mutilation which also (like slavery) traces it's origin to Black Africa where it's still practiced today.

    “I’m way past the age to join the military, which is the nearest present thing to the “peculiar institution” here in the US.”

    The military is a voluntary institution. A person chooses to join and be “owned”.

    “At present, an estimated 15 million humans continue living under slavery, with the vast majority confined to the continent of Africa, where it’s been a common practice since the dawn of recorded history and long before.”

    Slavery has been and continues to be found on every continent. I suggest you concentrate your concerns and efforts on humankind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. You’re the one who suggested I volunteer myself into slavery. Read your own post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  183. denk says:

    Balkanising the Unitedsnakes ?
    Best news I heard for years !
    The world needs a break from Washington’s tyranny. !

    Besides,
    The murkkans are so into balkanising other countries, the break up of USA would be poetic karma !

    Cant happen soon enough,
    Bring it on !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  184. denk says:
    @Sean
    Southern slave owners "didn’t build that", they just happened to be born in the South and have a little money.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/buddhist-leader-spreads-hatred-of-muslims-in-myanmar-1507806002

    Buddhist Leader Spreads Hatred of Muslims in Myanmar
    With army’s blessing, the Ven. Wirathu stokes public support for purge of ethnic Rohingya
    By James Hookway
    Oct. 12, 2017 7:00 a.m. ET
    HPA-AN, Myanmar—The Venerable Wirathu hitched up his orange robes, stepped up onto a stage on a recent Sunday and tapped the microphone.

    “What kind of people are these Muslims?” he barked as a crowd of 1,000 in this small town east of Yangon cheered him on. “Do they eat rice through their backsides and excrete through their mouths? They are the opposite of everything in nature.”

     

    Buddhists don't believe in free will, neither do any Western scientists (though many think belief in it is a beneficial illusion). So what is "evil" if the good is not true?

    Myanmar is uncle sham’s next balkanising proj.

    The WARsj etc are dutifully doing its usual hatchet job , manufacturing pretext for another R2P[lunder] intervention.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. MBlanc46 says:
    @Corvinus
    "Your grasp of the realities of the slave trade is weak indeed. Those who “stripped” the homeland and identity from the African slaves were the Africans who kidnapped them (or enslaved them by judicial process) and then sold them to European and Arab slave traders."

    Indeed, there is culpability on the part of African tribal groups who sold captives or prisoners of war--their enemies--to Europeans. However, this demand for black labor was generated by Europeans themselves to make a quick buck. Eventually, those tribes who procured slaves for Europeans became targets for enslavement.

    They weren’t forced to meet the demand for slaves. And if they were later enslaved themselves, it was by other Africans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Sean says:
    @peterAUS

    The enemy of Western elites are the militarily and economically redundant masses, and immigration is a class war on the redundant mass. The immigrants are a political counterweight and maybe a reserve army for any popular uprising.
     
    Agree.
    Don't believe in 'popular uprising', but the rest is, IMHO, spot on.

    https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/

    In September 2013, two Oxford researchers, Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, published “The Future of Employment,” in which they surveyed the likelihood of different professions being taken over by computer algorithms within the next 20 years, and they estimated that 47 percent of US jobs are at high risk. For example, there is a 99 percent probability that by 2033 human telemarketers and insurance underwriters will lose their jobs to algorithms. There is a 98 percent probability that the same will happen to sports referees. Cashiers — 97 percent. Chefs — 96 percent. Waiters — 94 percent. Paralegals — 94 percent. Tour guides — 91 percent. Bakers — 89 percent. Bus drivers — 89 percent. Construction laborers — 88 percent. Veterinary assistants — 86 percent. Security guards — 84 percent. Sailors — 83 percent. Bartenders — 77 percent. Archivists — 76 percent. Carpenters — 72 percent. Lifeguards — 67 percent [,,,]

    The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?.

    Quite a lot will prefer to fight, and die.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?.
     
    Agree.

    Quite a lot will prefer to fight, and die.
     
    Could be.
    The problem, should it happen, would be effectiveness of that "fight and die".

    Zulus at Ulundi?
    Japanese banzai assaults?

    More pertinent, insurrections against Soviet/Communist rule in Eastern Europe after WW2.
    Or, at the other side of the coin, Greek Communists after WW2.
    Etc...etc....plenty of examples, but let's not get bogged into history.

    Two great minds tried to address the issue. Orwell and Huxley.
    I believe we are looking at beginnings of some sort of "solution" as we speak.
    A combination of both.
    Strong stick with some carrot. Leaning more on the stick side.

    I believe that some sort of dystopian future (for, say, 80 % of population) is the most likely scenario.
    Unless something.....extraordinary....happens.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. peterAUS says:
    @Sean

    https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/


    In September 2013, two Oxford researchers, Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, published “The Future of Employment,” in which they surveyed the likelihood of different professions being taken over by computer algorithms within the next 20 years, and they estimated that 47 percent of US jobs are at high risk. For example, there is a 99 percent probability that by 2033 human telemarketers and insurance underwriters will lose their jobs to algorithms. There is a 98 percent probability that the same will happen to sports referees. Cashiers — 97 percent. Chefs — 96 percent. Waiters — 94 percent. Paralegals — 94 percent. Tour guides — 91 percent. Bakers — 89 percent. Bus drivers — 89 percent. Construction laborers — 88 percent. Veterinary assistants — 86 percent. Security guards — 84 percent. Sailors — 83 percent. Bartenders — 77 percent. Archivists — 76 percent. Carpenters — 72 percent. Lifeguards — 67 percent [,,,]

    The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?.
     

    Quite a lot will prefer to fight, and die.

    The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?.

    Agree.

    Quite a lot will prefer to fight, and die.

    Could be.
    The problem, should it happen, would be effectiveness of that “fight and die”.

    Zulus at Ulundi?
    Japanese banzai assaults?

    More pertinent, insurrections against Soviet/Communist rule in Eastern Europe after WW2.
    Or, at the other side of the coin, Greek Communists after WW2.
    Etc…etc….plenty of examples, but let’s not get bogged into history.

    Two great minds tried to address the issue. Orwell and Huxley.
    I believe we are looking at beginnings of some sort of “solution” as we speak.
    A combination of both.
    Strong stick with some carrot. Leaning more on the stick side.

    I believe that some sort of dystopian future (for, say, 80 % of population) is the most likely scenario.
    Unless something…..extraordinary….happens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    John Gray review of a book I am getting ASAP

    Forgetfulness: the dangers of a modern culture that wages war on its own past
    In the 18th and 19th centuries, Whig history meant history written as a story of continuing improvement. Today, it means history written as an exercise in reproach and accusation in which universal human evils are represented as being exclusively the products of Western power.Today, disparaging the past is a mark of intellectual respectability. Anyone who believes that history involves loss as well as gain is reactionary: “The preference among liberal intellectuals is for a new kind of Whig history – one where the past is to be surveyed primarily to expose its failings…

    ”This concept of mutual-harmony-with-identity is sometimes joined in the minds of the most extreme liberal intellectuals with bolder arguments that “national” and “cultural identity” are myths, forms of false consciousness, or divisive ideological too
     

     
    But Gray's review and the book itself point to a far right backlash as the ultimate danger "there has been a “revival of intolerance and, in some cases, literally of fascism”, including “the direct affirmation of Nazi ideology recast in versions of White Supremacy".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Carroll Price
    Spanish is a wonderful language we should all learn.

    A lot of wonderful languages. I enjoy picking which one to learn, not “needing” to know another one in what was my own country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Carroll Price
    If the San Andres Fault were to open and separate California from the mainland, would it not then become a foreign nation by default?

    No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Sean says:
    @peterAUS

    The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?.
     
    Agree.

    Quite a lot will prefer to fight, and die.
     
    Could be.
    The problem, should it happen, would be effectiveness of that "fight and die".

    Zulus at Ulundi?
    Japanese banzai assaults?

    More pertinent, insurrections against Soviet/Communist rule in Eastern Europe after WW2.
    Or, at the other side of the coin, Greek Communists after WW2.
    Etc...etc....plenty of examples, but let's not get bogged into history.

    Two great minds tried to address the issue. Orwell and Huxley.
    I believe we are looking at beginnings of some sort of "solution" as we speak.
    A combination of both.
    Strong stick with some carrot. Leaning more on the stick side.

    I believe that some sort of dystopian future (for, say, 80 % of population) is the most likely scenario.
    Unless something.....extraordinary....happens.

    John Gray review of a book I am getting ASAP

    Forgetfulness: the dangers of a modern culture that wages war on its own past
    In the 18th and 19th centuries, Whig history meant history written as a story of continuing improvement. Today, it means history written as an exercise in reproach and accusation in which universal human evils are represented as being exclusively the products of Western power.Today, disparaging the past is a mark of intellectual respectability. Anyone who believes that history involves loss as well as gain is reactionary: “The preference among liberal intellectuals is for a new kind of Whig history – one where the past is to be surveyed primarily to expose its failings…

    ”This concept of mutual-harmony-with-identity is sometimes joined in the minds of the most extreme liberal intellectuals with bolder arguments that “national” and “cultural identity” are myths, forms of false consciousness, or divisive ideological too

    But Gray’s review and the book itself point to a far right backlash as the ultimate danger “there has been a “revival of intolerance and, in some cases, literally of fascism”, including “the direct affirmation of Nazi ideology recast in versions of White Supremacy”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Of course.

    And, as soon as they "mark" the opposition as Nazi/Racist, well, all means are allowed to defeat that Great Evil.

    But, there lies the conundrum for powers that be.

    The mechanism of the state in West is manned, fundamentally, by very those people who are seen by harboring those ideas.
    And, when they "diversify" the forces that very mechanism loses its efficiency.
    On top of it they put so many "check and balances" on the mechanism so it becomes even more inefficient.

    So...they do need a mechanism, but, at the same time they work hard on making that mechanism ineffective.

    That's why they put more technology there. But...well....to properly maintain and use that technology one has to be smart and hard working enough. Forced diversity makes that difficult.
    At the same time messing up that technology is not that hard.

    So, we do live in interesting times.
    BTW, we are, IMHO, getting off the topic here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. peterAUS says:
    @Sean
    John Gray review of a book I am getting ASAP

    Forgetfulness: the dangers of a modern culture that wages war on its own past
    In the 18th and 19th centuries, Whig history meant history written as a story of continuing improvement. Today, it means history written as an exercise in reproach and accusation in which universal human evils are represented as being exclusively the products of Western power.Today, disparaging the past is a mark of intellectual respectability. Anyone who believes that history involves loss as well as gain is reactionary: “The preference among liberal intellectuals is for a new kind of Whig history – one where the past is to be surveyed primarily to expose its failings…

    ”This concept of mutual-harmony-with-identity is sometimes joined in the minds of the most extreme liberal intellectuals with bolder arguments that “national” and “cultural identity” are myths, forms of false consciousness, or divisive ideological too
     

     
    But Gray's review and the book itself point to a far right backlash as the ultimate danger "there has been a “revival of intolerance and, in some cases, literally of fascism”, including “the direct affirmation of Nazi ideology recast in versions of White Supremacy".

    Of course.

    And, as soon as they “mark” the opposition as Nazi/Racist, well, all means are allowed to defeat that Great Evil.

    But, there lies the conundrum for powers that be.

    The mechanism of the state in West is manned, fundamentally, by very those people who are seen by harboring those ideas.
    And, when they “diversify” the forces that very mechanism loses its efficiency.
    On top of it they put so many “check and balances” on the mechanism so it becomes even more inefficient.

    So…they do need a mechanism, but, at the same time they work hard on making that mechanism ineffective.

    That’s why they put more technology there. But…well….to properly maintain and use that technology one has to be smart and hard working enough. Forced diversity makes that difficult.
    At the same time messing up that technology is not that hard.

    So, we do live in interesting times.
    BTW, we are, IMHO, getting off the topic here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. weyyar says:

    Give California back to Mexico.
    Then all illegals could be more easily deported to California

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  193. Miro23 says:

    It’s not at all clear how Madrid’s planned direct rule (light version) is going to work.

    With 450.000 pro-independence supporters in the streets of Barcelona (Sat. 21st Oct.) how are Madrid appointees going to be able to run the Catalan administration? No doubt they’ll be blocked, even if they make it into their offices.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS