June 25, 2016

"The vote to Leave amounts to an outpouring of fury against the 'establishment.' Everyone from Barack Obama to the heads of NATO and the IMF urged Britons to embrace the EU."

"Their entreaties were spurned by voters who rejected not just their arguments but the value of 'experts' in general. Large chunks of the British electorate that have borne the brunt of public-spending cuts and have failed to share in Britain’s prosperity are now in thrall to an angry populism."

Say the editors of The Economist.

People are stopping taking instruction from the elite. The elite are terrified — at least for themselves and their own power — and they must struggle to find a way to convey that terror to the common people, who seem to be coming to believe that it's all been a big con. The main argument the elite have for the people is: If you don't stick with us, you're doing populism — you're in thrall to angry populism — and populism is bad and wrong.

250 comments:

1 – 200 of 250   Newer›   Newest»
tim in vermont said...

"Intellectuals got them into WWI and WWII, just for starters. Citizens in a democracy have a duty to not completely cede their judgment to "intellectuals."

rwnutjob said...

The exact same thing is going on on this side of the pond, and neither is assured of a good outcome.

AReasonableMan said...

Populism can be bad and wrong and probably is more often than not bad and wrong. Populism gave the world Hitler and Chavez. But, it is not necessarily bad and wrong. The elites fear populism because the position of the elites is always maintained by a lie. Currently the lie is that we live in a meritocracy, which justifies large disparities in wealth and income. The elite are, by definition, better people. If you were better you would also be an elite. Your lack of eliteness is entirely your own fault - bad genes, lack of impulse control.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary and the left, the new Calvinists.

David Begley said...

The really pathetic set of stories post Brexit is that people either didn't know what voting for Leave meant or regret it. Surely the same stories could be written for Remain voters. And are we talking about hundreds or millions of people?

The Left never rests and the MSM never stops assisting.

Hagar said...

It has been remarkable to listen to CBS News commentary on the Brexit. This was not reporting. This was grief and anger. Talk about interference in another country's politics!

I guess it comes from the intellectual left having so much invested in their dream of them governing without being bothered by either elective politics or dictatorships.

Paul Snively said...

As AReasonableMan alludes to, the legitimate warning against populism is that it is often incoherent.

The problem with global elitism is that it's coherent... and increasingly inimical to anything actually representing the will of the people.

"Democracy," whether direct or representative, is noisy, boisterous, fractious, plodding, and not notable for its consistency of vision. That's why politicians of all stripes believe it needs taming to one degree or another. America-as-idea was founded on a free people's distrust of that political impulse. If that distrust is now expressed most strongly by America's mother, well and good.

Henry said...

I find the panic extremely unpersuasive.

damikesc said...

Man, the establishment is PISSED. It's GLORIOUS.

"Intellectuals got them into WWI and WWII, just for starters. Citizens in a democracy have a duty to not completely cede their judgment to "intellectuals."

They also caused the global financial crisis in 2008.

The people kept saying that this wasn't working for them and the elites just kept doubling down. It is nice seeing the establishment coming out against anybody not as great as they. The elites are replaceable.

After all, a mechanic is infinitely more needed than a philosophy professor. A plumber trumps a writer for a political magazine.

It has been remarkable to listen to CBS News commentary on the Brexit. This was not reporting. This was grief and anger. Talk about interference in another country's politics!

Given their coverage of the "sit in", reporting is not the media's concern at all.

Elites should be happy: Bloodshed is not likely. Yet. But if the proles decide to do away with the elites, they will REALLY not like that.

MayBee said...

The EU was achieving the left elite's dream of controlling even the most minute details of the people's lives. Not just trade and press rules, but how croissants should be made and whether olive oil can be put on restaurant tables in refillable containers.
It is/was an ever-expanding regulatory state so the people will live the way the elites want them to live, run by people who have an interest in more and more regulations to keep themselves busy, because they don't actually have any countries to run.

It isn't enough for the elites to know that people don't want this. Of course they don't-- that's why they need regulating. But to actually lose the power to force people to live right. That is painful. What if other people want out?

MayBee said...

I've been appalled by my English friends who are talking about how all the Leave voters are "old" and will be dead soon, and have rudimentary educations. I mean, they are saying these things out loud!

Big Mike said...

The elite are terrified — at least for themselves and their own power — and they must struggle to find a way to convey that terror to the common people, who seem to be coming to believe that it's all been a big con.

You know, if someone keeps playing the shell game without finding the pea sooner or later they're going to quite playing.

The main argument the elite have for the people is: If you don't stick with us, you're doing populism — you're in thrall to angry populism — and populism is bad and wrong.

Wrong for the elite, maybe. But if the elite didn't want to have to confront an angry population they could have listened better.

tim maguire said...

I don't have an opinion on Brexit (other than admiration for British peole for striking boldly in a new direction), but every careful analysis I've seen was written by someone who ultimately determined Leave was the right course. Meanwhile, every single Remain argument I've seen is little more than "they're a bunch of stupid pants hatey-haters."

If I had a vote and all I had to go on were the arguments of the Remain faction, I'd vote Leave.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Somehow "experts" and "the establishment" morphed seamlessly into "the elite" as if that were the same thing as "the hereditary monarchy," with its connotations of illegitimacy and repressiveness.

I can't come up with an satisfying explanation for how that happened.

The Bergall said...

Like this has never happened before.............

mezzrow said...

Brexit is double plus ungood, says Emperor Palpatine.

AReasonableMan said...

MayBee said...
I've been appalled by my English friends who are talking about how all the Leave voters are "old" and will be dead soon, and have rudimentary educations. I mean, they are saying these things out loud!


No different to the writings of Kevin Williamson and Bret Stephens, two pillars of the establishment.

damikesc said...

I don't have an opinion on Brexit (other than admiration for British peole for striking boldly in a new direction), but every careful analysis I've seen was written by someone who ultimately determined Leave was the right course. Meanwhile, every single Remain argument I've seen is little more than "they're a bunch of stupid pants hatey-haters."

I read somewhere that it'd be wise for the "Remain" crowd to figure out why the vote to Leave won. People don't leave good situations willingly. If the EU was as great as the "remain" crowd professes to believe, it'd have won huge.

He likened it to the Titanic. People didn't choose to leave the Titanic for life boats for no rational reason.

MayBee said...

No different to the writings of Kevin Williamson and Bret Stephens, two pillars of the establishment.

I don't read them, so I don't know.

Are you British, Canadian, or Australian by any chance? Your "no different to" construction sounds like Commonwealth English.

damikesc said...

What if other people want out?

There's rumors that five other countries are looking to hold referendums. Apparently, the EU isn't a panacaea.

I've been appalled by my English friends who are talking about how all the Leave voters are "old" and will be dead soon, and have rudimentary educations. I mean, they are saying these things out loud!

Didn't Obama supporters say that about McCain, basically?

MayBee said...

damikesc- why would they figure it out? They can just call them xenophobic. Isn't that what we are doing these days?

Sydney said...

This explains why my local newspaper had two (2!) front page stories on Brexit and how bad this was going to be for everyone, even us here in the United States, but they have yet to run one (1!) story about Hilary Clinton's private email server issue, let alone one on the front page.

darllenydd said...

I’ve seen the Remain campaign aptly characterized as “fear, sneer and smear”.

Bob Ellison said...

Bad and wrong: badong.

Michael K said...

Simple explanation. Why would people leave a 50,000 ton ship and go into wooden boats on the ocean ?

Brexit, for all its drama, was merely a warning. The basic demand is for a moderation of the centralizing tendencies, unchecked immigration, runaway political correctness and metastatic government that have characterized the West in these last decades. That’s the bottom line. Unfortunately conceding these demands requires overcoming so much momentum that the captain committee on the bridge has despaired of effecting it. But do it they must. All Brexit has done is give warning. It has started the clock. The rest is up to the West.

The Titanic was unsinkable.

Michael McClain said...

Angry populism created our country.

Hagar said...

Somehow "experts" and "the establishment" morphed seamlessly into "the elite" as if that were the same thing as "the hereditary monarchy," with its connotations of illegitimacy and repressiveness.

This is the MSM poobahs deflecting attention away from themselves.

Darrell said...

The EU was on life support. This is the Liverpool Care Pathway in action. Pull the plug.

tim in vermont said...

So Hillary showed, after voting for the Iraq war "with conviction," that her "conviction" was genuine by, as Secretary of State, inflaming a civil war in Syria in an attempt to overthrow a Ba'athist dictator, and engineering the overthrow of Qaddaffy. Her ham-fisted hawkishness then created a huge number of refugees.

Frau Merkel then invites millions of these newly minted refugees into Europe, without so much as a "by your leave" uttered to any other member state, many of whom were as pissed off Britain.

And the Brexit is the result of stupid anti-intellectual voters?

I used to think that "anti-intellectual" meant that one didn't want to think. It turns out that the received meaning of the term is that an "anti-intellectual" refuses to let others think for him. It's an ironic term then.

grackle said...

Populism gave the world Hitler and Chavez.

With anything or anyone they don’t like they try to draw parallels with Nazism and Marxism. In the recent past it was usually America, conservatism, Bush and the Tea Party that they slandered.

Someone would invariably show up and hotly declare some opinion to the effect that the USA, the GOP, Bush or the Tea Party “created” Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, Communism, socialism or any other despot, murderer, oppressive regime or criminal they can think of.

National Socialism created Hitler – or was it the other way around? Socialism ain’t populism.

And with Chavez it was the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Socialism ain’t populism.

I think the commentor’s basic problem is with voters who vote in a way not approved by the commentor. The commentor has an obvious problem with democracy and would like issues decided by our “betters” instead of messy referendums with unexpected outcomes.

… the writings of Kevin Williamson and Bret Stephens, two pillars of the establishment.

Oh, they’ll get over it. Fainting spells last only so long and then you get the smelling salts and everything comes back into focus. Meanwhile we’ve learned something valuable about them and the rest of their ilk.

Phil 3:14 said...

"No different to the writings of Kevin Williamson and Bret Stephens, two pillars of the establishment."

Have you read much Kevin Williamson?

Definition of elite: A smart and/or well spoken individual who's opinion I don't like.

I read the Economist and I like craft beer. I guess I'm an elite.

Virgil Hilts said...

I know the issue is highly politicized and the #s disputed, but a lot of what drove Brexit was resentment that the immigrant Muslims were such a big drain, and the influx was not going to slow down. Daily Telegraph reported in 2012 - 75%/50% of Muslim women/men unemployed, a rise from 13% for men and 18% for women in 2004. 24%/21% men/women claim disability. Muslims most likely group to be living in accommodation. Also, total prison population in the UK (category A and B third degree criminals) was 35-39% Muslim. Is it really xenophobic not to want to have this keep increasing?

tim in vermont said...

Definition of elite: A smart and/or well spoken individual who's opinion I don't like.

That is pretty funny in its absurdity, not its truth.

An elite is somebody who exercises the levers of power in a way that the rest of us can't though social position and political connections. Reading the Economist doesn't make you an elite, it makes you a sucker for left of center propaganda if you actually pay for it. Influencing what The Economist writes about, and what their position is on any given issue? That is what a member of the elite does. You just lap it up like so much spittle on Hillary Clinton's dick.

Michael K said...

"Suddenly this earthquake seems to have less to do with the U.K. than with something altogether bigger: Investors globally starting to question the institutional framework that has been inducing ultralow interest rates while supplying central bank actions to prop up the industrial world’s most heavily-indebted governments."

Hmmm...

That was the WSJ reflecting on what happened. The British stock market is down LESS than other countries.

Why do you suppose that is ?

Michael K said...

The Economist is pretty good on many countries but it is reliably leftist about the US. I gave it up years ago.

Virgil Hilts said...

A good summary of the immigration issue -- http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6915/europe-muslim-enrichment

Virgil Hilts said...

And we should not forget Rotherham. "The Battle of Brexit, Britain, and Brussels was lost by Europe on the playing fields and in the alleys and immigrant housing of the British town of Rotherham." http://spectator.org/brexit-was-sparked-by-rape-and-crime/

Bay Area Guy said...

At some point enough Brits awoke and said, "We are losing the traditions, autonomy and control that made us British in the first place. Do we want to continue to allow bureaucrats in Brussels to shape our lives or not?"

Thankfully, they chose "Not"

This is an excellent step in the right direction for Liberty.

Bob Ellison said...

Leftists' knees are jerking everywhere over Brexit. They know nothing about it but hate the idea that government could shrink in any way. Xenophobia! Voting against self-interest! Random stupidity!

Paco Wové said...

"Angry populism" should be a sign to the Powers That Be that they aren't doing their jobs right. But if the PTB can't do their jobs right, they probably aren't smart enough to interpret signs either.

AJ Lynch said...

I think it is fair to say populism helped to elect FDR 4 times.

And I really like Kevin Williamson's opinions and writings until he went bonkers over Trump.

Paco Wové said...

"Leftists' knees are jerking everywhere"

The worldwide unanimity of the left on this issue – and its support for entrenched, hegemonic power structures – is a remarkable thing.

Phil 3:14 said...

Is this the opinion of an "elite"?

Temujin said...

William Buckley Jr. in 1963: "I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."

He saw it then. It took another 53 years for that concept to reach England. Not sure if we've reached the tipping point here, but I suspect it's very close to it.

David said...

I remain unconvinced. The elite are still in control. They will negotiate the new treaties the UK has with the EU. The Congress in the US is still mostly safe seats, and the federal bureaucracy is near impossible to fire. It will take more than this.

Phil 3:14 said...

PS If you don't support Trump, you're probably an elite.

Phil 3:14 said...

I'm 53, lost my job at the mill when it shut down three years ago, have no desire to learn a new trade, filed for disability and now survive on 40 oxycontin a month and reality TV.

Damn elites!!

rehajm said...

At least in the democratic nations somebody voted the jokers in, right?

It's such a compelling argument for a politician to point out it's the fault of those who voted themselves extra trips to the buffet before you had a turn. Or those who came here after you and took what's yours. So we elect them and they enact policies to correct the perceived wrongs. The policies fail since they don't address what's really happening because the solutions to what's really happening are boring, confusing or fail to scratch the vengeance itch.

Rinse. Repeat.

Anglelyne said...

AA: The main argument the elite have for the people is: If you don't stick with us, you're doing populism — you're in thrall to angry populism — and populism is bad and wrong.

If the "elites" were equal to their claim to elite status, they would have noticed 5-10 years ago that the panglossian bullshit was starting to lose its efficacy on the unwashed. They would have then come up with slightly less insulting rhetoric, or even (though I grant this is extreme) policies that actually addressed the grievances of hoi polloi. But they did none of that. Instead, they became more arrogant and heedless, and the insults louder, cruder. and stupider by the day.

Elites can coast for a long time, if things don't get too unpleasant for the lower orders. But sooner or later they have to prove that they deserve their status - that they can "deliver the goods" (protection, order, prosperity) for the people they claim the right to rule over. They can a)rise to the occasion, or b)slink off with the treasury before things get too hot, or c)go all crazy-Roman-emperor or ancien regime dingbat on the populace. Apparently ours have plumped for option "c".

Paco Wové said...

or d) get hung from a lamppost.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It's easy to feel that Obama blundered hugely and embarrassingly on this one, but if one really does feel it to be a disastrous move, he could have at least spoken to them about the root causes of the need to leave. For someone as smart as he is, it's simply amazing how poor a job he often does at getting to the basis of contentious issues that later rise up to bite him in the ass.

Stupid Obama. Stronger ties with Britain will now be more crucial than ever.

dreams said...

People who have to work about fifty weeks a year to earn a living do not like subsidizing those who only work about thirty five weeks a year which is the situation in some of the EU countries. I guess those who have to pay for socialism don't like socialism.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The Economist is pretty good on many countries but it is reliably leftist about the US. I gave it up years ago.

Although I am thought to be just a lowly McDonald's employee by certain elites, I have to say that I agree about the uselessness of The Economist. I can't believe it's good on any country, though. The whole rag simply reads as a caricature of
every government and people around the world. Give me data and facts, not cartoons dressed up as serious analysis.

Earnest Prole said...

To paraphrase Mencken, Populism is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Michael said...

Anglelyne, as usual, puts it perfectly. I can only add that the writers at The Economist employ the very methods of insult that led to Brexit in the first place. Oh, and nota bene: Boris Johnson is not an old disgruntled pensioner retaliating against the man. Quite a few toffs love their country.

Michael K said...

"I really like Kevin Williamson's opinions and writings until he went bonkers over Trump."

Me, too.

Fernandez nails it. "Why would passengers leave a 50,000 ton steel ship in mid-ocean and get into wooden lifeboats ?"

MaxedOutMama said...

Another word for populism is democracy.

Responding to the voters' concerns with a loud proclamation "The voters revolting; the voters are completely disgusting!: is not a good electoral campaign strategy. In a democracy.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm sympathetic to the British exit and hope this can give them a better opportunity to define their role and will separately from a European government too stodgy to even figure out how to keep terrorists out. But it's difficult to avoid concluding that if this unravelling continued throughout the mainland and continent, it would indeed be a horrible and dangerous setback.

The countries of Europe should be united and administered together, as the different states in India are. But they need to figure out whether and how much more democratic to make it.

dreams said...

One of their editors was a guest on Fox business the night of the Brexit and Stuart Varney good-naturedly but pointedly gave him a hard time about not being true to a free economy but rather favoring a crony capitalist statist economy.

buwaya puti said...

The Economist isnt what it used to be, by a long long way. In the old days it had proper foreign correspondents that it shared with, among others, the really excellent Far East Economic Review, which was intimately tied to the grand old but yet rather raffish British firms of Hong Kong. They knew what was what, because they werent isolated in office towers mainly speaking to each other. These days? I dont get the impression that they are good with facts on the ground.

The Gold Digger said...

Definition of elite: A smart and/or well spoken individual who's opinion I don't like.

Let me fix that for you:

Definition of elite: A person who 1. thinks he is smarter than I am and 2. thinks he should be able to tell me how to live my life.

I was talking to a legislator in my state house. He made some comment about what it's like being around all the egos of the other legislators and how they are all experts. I realized that they all think they are smarter than the rest of us.

I guess they don't understand that most of us look at career politicians and think, "Wow. No way that person could ever have made it in the private sector."

Michael said...

Oh course no one is asking why if the EU is so great why another four or five countries are contemplating a move similar to the UK's. The countries wanting to stay in (leaving out London from this) would be net takers of the system. Just what the EU needs: Scotland. London wants to stay because it is the monetary capital of Europe and will not be so after Brexit. The bankers and their remoras will suffer or move to Frankfurt and Berlin.

holdfast said...

I am not opposed to the concept of an Elite - of a group of smart, well-educated people who use ideas and erudition to be thought-leaders.

The problem is that our "current" elite, to put it in British terms, is total shite.

Most of them seem to be credentialed without being particularly well educated, their only thoughts are group-think, and they are completely out of touch with the working people whom they propose to lead. Being a "leader" isn't just running out in front of a bunch of other people and hoping that they will follow you. Because they won't, especially if they think you're running straight towards a cliff.

It reminds me of a classic British Army officer performance review joke: "His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of a morbid sense of curiosity".

CWJ said...

David wrote -

"I remain unconvinced. The elite are still in control. They will negotiate the new treaties the UK has with the EU. The Congress in the US is still mostly safe seats, and the federal bureaucracy is near impossible to fire. It will take more than this."

Agreed. Objectively, the Brexit vote is toothless. The rational response would have been to mouth pieties such as "the people have spoken," make symbolic moves like Cameron resigning, and then slow walk the subsequent process until such time as they can change the subject or jigger a new vote.

That we see the overreaction on both sides of the pond somewhat surprises me. Either they really are frightened that it is all coming apart and that they are losing control, and/or they are collectively personally shocked and offended that people dared to question their agenda. I don't know, but I wouldn't put it passed the weight of the reason being on the latter. They still hold the reins so I think they're taking it personally.

holdfast said...

The Leave Campaign was based on nostalgia, romanticism and even hope. And yeah, a fear of having one's country "fundamentally transformed" without consent or input.

Remain was based on fear, period. Fear of the unknown, and fear of losing money. It was never based on the virtues of the EU - how great the EU was. It was more like, "yeah, the EU is shite, but we're in this shite now and getting out will be too painful (costly to London), and maybe this shite will get better in a while." Real inspiring stuff, that.

And even then, the total difference was less than 4% - or a 2% swing. Dear Frau Merkel - your actions alone - your unilateral decision to invite the population of Syria into the EU - was probably responsible for more than a 2% swing. Yes Kanzeler, you made Brexit possible. Congrats.

Anglelyne said...

tim in vermont: An elite is somebody who exercises the levers of power in a way that the rest of us can't though social position and political connections. Reading the Economist doesn't make you an elite, it makes you a sucker for left of center propaganda if you actually pay for it. Influencing what The Economist writes about, and what their position is on any given issue? That is what a member of the elite does. You just lap it up like so much spittle on Hillary Clinton's dick.

You're in fine form today, tim.

(I'm baffled why people like Phil and Chuck and a few others around here think that they're being classed with "elites" or "the establishment" when someone points out that their preferred opinion-vendors or political parties are run by and for the interests of "elites". It's weird.)

mockturtle said...

The MSM are hastily and furiously digging their own grave. I wonder if they even realize they have lost the power to influence.

damikesc said...

From National Review in an interesting article where a pro-EU economist explains why Leave left.

After eight years of austerity, monetary shocks, and a reshuffling of accounts that would astound a three-card-monte con artist in Times Square, where is Europe? Greece is bankrupt, with a towering debt. Portugal has a debt load larger than even Japan’s.

France seems stuck in a permanent recession. Italy and Spain have still not reached the output levels that they had before the 2008 financial crisis. It’s only because of quantitative easing and negative interest rates that the eurozone hasn’t collapsed like a house of cards.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437131/uk-referendum-brexit-vote-eu-elites-ignored-economic-concerns


It's a really damning article about why the Brexit happened. And this economist, who voted Remain, seems to understand well why so many people wanted to leave.

Also points out that French voters are more anti-EU than the UK was. As are the Dutch. And Italians.

damikesc said...

Brexit, for all its drama, was merely a warning. The basic demand is for a moderation of the centralizing tendencies, unchecked immigration, runaway political correctness and metastatic government that have characterized the West in these last decades. That’s the bottom line. Unfortunately conceding these demands requires overcoming so much momentum that the captain committee on the bridge has despaired of effecting it. But do it they must. All Brexit has done is give warning. It has started the clock. The rest is up to the West.

It's also baffling. Progressives claim to hate politics now and how bad governments are --- then fight ANY attempt to reform anything. Their beef isn't corruption or ineptitude --- it's that they aren't getting their slice of the pie fast enough.

And we should not forget Rotherham. "The Battle of Brexit, Britain, and Brussels was lost by Europe on the playing fields and in the alleys and immigrant housing of the British town of Rotherham."

Another biggie. And seeing the rampage of the "immigrants" on New Year's being covered up as much as possible likely didn't help.

It's easy to feel that Obama blundered hugely and embarrassingly on this one, but if one really does feel it to be a disastrous move, he could have at least spoken to them about the root causes of the need to leave. For someone as smart as he is, it's simply amazing how poor a job he often does at getting to the basis of contentious issues that later rise up to bite him in the ass.

It seemed to be an occasion for a simple "I don't wish to opine on a country's policies. We'll make it work no matter what the choice is". "Go to the back of the line" had to come across as an American trying to tell them what to do. Americans hated it when Brits did it in 2004. I doubt they are any more fond of it.

I'm sympathetic to the British exit and hope this can give them a better opportunity to define their role and will separately from a European government too stodgy to even figure out how to keep terrorists out. But it's difficult to avoid concluding that if this unravelling continued throughout the mainland and continent, it would indeed be a horrible and dangerous setback.

It could be a bad thing. But I don't think an unaccountable body of busybodies trying to micromanage your life is something anybody should find beneficial or OK. The way you make people recognize the benefits is to provide the benefits and plenty feel the EU isn't doing that. It's why so many people like me support the US leaving the UN --- it seems corrupt and pointless with zero benefits to us in participating.

Michael K said...

"it had proper foreign correspondents that it shared with, among others, the really excellent Far East Economic Review, "

Excellent point.

mockturtle said...

Will we be hearing La Marseillaise sung passionately again soon?

Michael K said...

From the beginnings with Herbert Croly and his vision of a technocratic elite, Progressivism has been an experiment that has finally produced a conclusion.

It doesn't work.

In Croly's view, "the traditional American confidence in individual freedom has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth."

What we and the Europeans got was "a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth." in the Progressive elite.

From the WSJ piece on Brexit:

putting a finger on what would prove the eurozone’s fatal flaw: The “moral hazard” that would flow from an expectation the EU would bail out profligate members and thereby “weaken the imperative for fiscal adjustment.

Eighteen years later, this observation defines the failure of the European Union project. Economic growth is largely absent. Debts are growing. Youth and immigrant unemployment is creating a generation without skills and habits of work. It’s increasingly hard to see how a France or Italy will ever right itself within the eurozone, coddled by the European Central Bank, making it impossible for politicians to generate any urgency for domestic reform.


Progressivism in its classical form does not work. Too much moral hazard. That's why free markets always win if allowed to exist.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Coming soon: Grexit, Italeave, Czechout, Portugone, Raustria, Finish, Fleeden, Donemark, Ditschland, Slovenaderci, Retireland, Beljump, and Cypronara. The only ones left will be Remainia.

Bob Ellison said...

Paul Zrimsek, that's good stuff.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Thanks, Bob. I only stole about 2/3 of it.

Hagar said...

The countries of Europe should be united and administered together, as the different states in India are.

And I think the United States ought to get rid of their ridiculous "Constitution" and adopt a parliamentary system of government like other civilized countries.

dreams said...

I like this and I hope it happens.

"Appearing on Fox News’s “Your World” with guest host Maria Bartiromo on Friday, Laffer said that he thinks America is heading towards Reagan, Margaret Thatcher economics.

“Things are similar to where they were in 1979, 1978, 1980. And frankly, the pressure is in all areas, it’s not just immigration,” Laffer said. “It’s bad economies, it’s all sorts of pressures, regulations, restrictions and with that being the background, I think you’re seeing the first shot fired with Brexit. But you’ll see a lot more coming.”

“I think this will lead to a Donald Trump presidency, ultimately and a lot of prosperity for the world,” Laffer said. “I’m very excited about what’s happening.”"



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/24/art-laffer-the-brexit-will-lead-to-a-donald-trump-presidency/#ixzz4CbXMQQNe

viator said...

An example of elite thinking:

Child safety seat when riding in a car on public road:
https://www.chp.ca.gov/ResearchAndPlanningSectionSite/PublishingImages/15-349_048_carSeat.jpg

Stiff penalties adhere

Child safety seat when riding a bicycle on a public road:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-m_nOozGJKHjMmXEWAW-uolIUgYrMB3UVBVZjPsKj5LFNUgny
http://www.zalkopp.com/upload/c/80/c80d869a8c880fe9.jpg
https://www.bikeshophub.com/contentimage/medium/Weehoo_bike_child_trailer_blog_catagory.jpg


Rhythm and Balls said...

And I think the United States ought to get rid of their ridiculous "Constitution" and adopt a parliamentary system of government like other civilized countries.

No one cares what you think.

Anglelyne said...

holdfast: The Leave Campaign was based on nostalgia, romanticism and even hope. And yeah, a fear of having one's country "fundamentally transformed" without consent or input.

Hope is a nice feeling, isn't it?

I still say that it isn't the "leavers" who are the real nostalgists. The anti-EU, anti-globalist temperament favors normal human life - it wants to belong to a coherent and explicable culture, to have a sense of physical and temporal continuity, such that one feels one has a "home" in space and time, wants to feel some measure of control over life. It rebels against an inhumane and alienating fantasy-based regime which dictates open borders and the vacuous anti-culture of "multiculturalism".

The mega-staters and globalists seem to me to be stuck sixty years in the past, all their ideals grounded in "fixing" whatever it is they think it is that blew up the 20th century. (A "fix" which bodes fair to blow up the 21st). They are also convinced, underneath their anti-racist, anti-colonialist hair shirts, that the West is the moral lodestar and savior of the rest of humanity, indicating a crypto-nostalgia for the days when the Great White Bwana dominated the globe, and could indulge his grandiose universalist pretensions unchallenged by anybody but those other white people over there with their own universalist pretensions. But it's not 1950 anymore.

Anglelyne said...

Paul Zrimsek: Thanks, Bob. I only stole about 2/3 of it.

I bet the 1/3 you didn't steal are the cleverest.

Sebastian said...

"Large chunks of the British electorate that have borne the brunt of public-spending cuts and have failed to share in Britain’s prosperity are now in thrall to an angry populism." Even the diagnosis of there revolt drips with condescension, plus a kind of vulgar Marxism. Only some of the Leave voters did so for specific material reasons. (Evidence: some upper-class constituencies, outside the university towns, also voted Leave.) Nearly everyone who was interviewed expressed some variation of: we need our country back, we want to be British again, and so on. The big drivers were national identity and sovereignty; the main concrete spur was immigration.

Dr Weevil said...

Clueless Economist writes of "Large chunks of the British electorate that have borne the brunt of public-spending cuts and have failed to share in Britain’s prosperity". I suspect most of the 52% aren't looking for more generous subsidies from the central government: they just want to work and save and have those around them work and save, too. Living on the dole, or getting a government subsidy because your job doesn't pay a living wage, is not attractive to most of us, and working your butt off so others can live on the dole even less so. Somehow the Economist seems to think that if London had just shoveled more taxpayers' money to the poorer areas so everyone could have a government check, everything would have been all right. I don't think the swineherd model of government works for human beings.

Dr Weevil said...

Heh. Great minds think alike. Sebastian and I react to the same sentence at the same time in overlapping ways.

Paco Wové said...

Interesting comment from Samizdata's Perry de Havilland:

"...the nastiest things I heard said about Corbyn were from the self-described Labourites… and the cattiest remarks about Cameron came from the self-described Tories… and both groups laughed as they listened to the others trashing the leaders of their own parties, as if it was a competition who could heap more expletives on their own nominal leaders. I must confess I have never seen the like in all my years."

A dynamic that has been conspicuously playing out as well with the GOP, and is just as conspicuously absent from the Democrats, who have all lined up like good little sheep behind the very embodiment of a corrupt, incompetent, and vindictive establishment.

buwaya puti said...

Another thing that struck me about the Economist, at least ten years ago, is that the employment ads in the back were nearly all for academics posts in international agencies.

n.n said...

Anti-native policies, [class] diversity schemes, mass displacement, and selective-child have consequences. The Marxists will need to increase the opiate dosage.

Achilles said...

Michael McClain said...
"Angry populism created our country."

The American revolution was a historical outliar. Never before had the people been given so much freedom. You could own property. You could keep everything you earned and you didn't need to support a lord in a castle.

Ever since then the aristocracy has been creeping back into power. We lose property rights by increments. Always for some good reason. Property taxes for education. Department of Ecology monitors and regulates the water you use to save salmon etc. Now the federal government, which started at less than 3% of GDP is closer to a quarter of GDP, much of it borrowed and most direct payments to individuals to buy votes.

Every year 20 to 30 million people pick up rifle and sidearm to go shoot animals for food and sport. Half of the 17% of our population that are military vets are combat effective. This is why it has been incremental but they made a mistake with Obama and now Hillary. They should have been more patient if they wanted to win.

Now it is too late for them. We are going to roll back their control. How far depends on how hard they fight and how bloody they make it. A trump presidency is the best they can hope for. But the graduates of Harvard, Yale, Oxford, the grand ecoles, and the Eliteuniversitäten are not showing much intelligence really. It would not surprise me if Obama thought the us armed forces would side with him in a second revolution.

Unknown said...

Trump seems to embrace the concept of Eminent Domain. How elitist.

Temujin said...

I've wondered for years why those on the left are so terrified of individual liberty. Any movement where the people prefer to make their own decisions for their own lives are viewed by the left as foolery. Those on the left claim to speak truth to power, claim to want to let people live for their own sake, yet are always most comfortable in the sweet bosom of the State. What they fear is people living their lives in a manner they do not approve of: reading, thinking, even eating what they will. THAT rankles the left. (Brussels even had regulations primed for restaurants in Europe to tell them how they can serve olive oil. We have leaders telling us how large our soda pop can be.) They're OK with government telling people how to live, as long as THEY are part of that government and THEY get to decide what others should think, say, eat, play, etc. Think this is wrong? History would say otherwise. Just look at our college campuses in this country today. Say what's on your mind, even THINK what's on your mind and you could get booted out of school. You can get arrested just by someone pointing their finger at you and making the same awful sound as the pod people in 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'. Indeed, sometimes I wake up and think the pods have taken over.

I suspect when we look around at the state of things in the world and note that our leaders thought the most important thing to tackle was to make sure a man could squat in a toilet stall next to young women in the ladies room, we may have our own Brexit forthcoming. Stay tuned folks. You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Dr Weevil said...

MayBee (7:17am):
The hilarious thing about the young voters complaining that the old voters voted them out is that the younger voters have no idea what the UK was like before joining the EU: they weren't born yet. The older voters have direct knowledge of the differences between Britain in the EU and Britain out of it, and the more knowledge they had of pre-EU Britain the less frightened they were of leaving.

Another point:
Someone on Twitter alleged that Brexit areas are only 5% immigrants, while Remain areas are 36% immigrants. Apparently it didn't occur to him that that can be taken two ways. Maybe people who live with immigrants are less hostile to them (his assumption). Or maybe they're more hostile, and more knowledgeably hostile, but got outvoted. If an area is 36% immigrant, and 35 of those 36 vote Remain along with less than 1/3 of the rest (21 of 64), that's a solid majority of 56%. Then again, I don't know how many of the 36% could vote, so my analysis may be incorrect. Unfortunately, I Tweet under my real name about non-political matters, so I'm biting my virtual tongue a lot today.

Michael K said...

"Ever since then the aristocracy has been creeping back into power. "

Maybe you would like, The Collapse of Complex Societies."

Complexity, writes Tainter, describes a variety of characteristics in a number of societies. SOm aspects of complexity include many differentiated social roles, a large class of administrators not involved in the production of primary resources, energy devoted to different kinds of communication, centralised government, etc.

From a review on Amazon.

"Now the federal government, which started at less than 3% of GDP is closer to a quarter of GDP, much of it borrowed and most direct payments to individuals to buy votes. "

Yes, Progressivism has a limited life span. Until they run out of other people's money.

AReasonableMan said...

MayBee said...
Your "no different to" construction sounds like Commonwealth English.


Spent much of the last few days listening to Sky News. Am finding it genuinely fascinating. There is some thought on there that Brexit will end up being less than it currently seems. The UK holds all the cards regarding the timing of their departure (invoking Article 50) but essentially no cards once the process begins. Much can happen before they take the plunge. Currently the EU is pressing the UK to rush to invoke Article 50 but the EU may begin to see this as not in their interests if it encourages exit movements in other countries.

Also an interesting insight into Merkel's thinking. Because she lived behind the Berlin wall and was essentially a prisoner in her own country she may be unusually sensitive on the open borders issue, locked into a way of thinking that has become counterproductive.

Fred Drinkwater said...

"in thrall"? Un effing believable. So the "leavers", but not the "remainers" are all mind-controlled zombies with no agency and no principled understanding of their own and the country's interests. Good to know. God I hate paternalists. (I like to say "I had parents when I was a kid and needed parents. I grew up, and they died.")
The Economist, like Scientific American, was once an excellent source. But both, like so many other organizations, were destroyed by Conquest's Second law: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."

Owen said...

Great comments here. Several points:
(1) Michael K @ 8:26: "...That was the WSJ reflecting on what happened. The British stock market is down LESS than other countries. Why do you suppose that is ?" Exactly. EU is running out of ways to buy trust. Brexit was a vote of no confidence and will likely trigger more. The system is so massive (and well-guarded by entrenched interest and BS experts) that it will not evolve quickly in an obvious way, but once these cascades start, they tend to get bigger. Nonlinearity is a real bear.
(2) In physical terms EU is like a ship with a lot of "free surface effect," that's liquid that can shift freely as the center of gravity moves sideways. Once that gets going, look out.
(3) The "global elite" is a bit like the Mighty Oz. It probably amounts to a few thousand "leaders" and a few tens of thousands of courtiers and apparatchiks who control media and do opinion pieces, run foundations and think tanks. At most a million or so. They have enormous power to shape the fate of the 6 billion or more of us; until a little dog pulls on the curtain.

Anglelyne said...

ARM @10:59 AM:

Interesting comment. Thanks.

Will said...

Both Obamacare and the Iran Deal were opposed by the general population by 62-38 margins. Yet a small group of elite legislators ignored that popular will and passed both items..

"Win an election" they said. So we broomed our out-of-touch reps on a wholesale basis. And the new folks acted just the same. They declined to exercise the check and balance we had given them.

We also had a President that, having lost both houses of Congress due to his actions, ignored the loss of Congress and proceeded to do whatever he wanted by executive action.. Again, the congress largely declined to exercise its checks and balances. And SCOTUS invented new rights and concepts out of thin air, including the right to be taxed for not buying something.

This election provides the worst choice we have ever had. A proven corrupt liar with a poor record and a citizen with a checkered past.

I feel these elites get what they deserve and I hope they get it swift and hard, to send a signal that will not be forgotten for a generation.

This is still the greatest country on earth and we need to show the world that freedom, not government, is the answer.

American was built by immigrants who came here and built this great country via sweat equity. We still welcome those who want to earn it and are ready to work for it. But you can't have a welfare state and open borders

Anglelyne said...

Fred Drinkwater: The Economist, like Scientific American, was once an excellent source.

Oh, don't remind me about SciAm. I get so depressed whenever I recall the SciAm of my youth.

tim in vermont said...

I don't actually support Trump, BTW. I just have a rule that says anybody who takes it on themselves to point out some flaw of his,of which there are plenty, is going to hear something just as bad or worse about Hillary, no short supply there either. Already led to me being shouted at in my own home who went off on Trump uninvited. I don't bring up politics, that's what the Web is for.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Did everyone miss this cheap ploy to aim all shots at "elitism" against politicians (especially left wing ones) when we're talking about a society that still has a queen and royal family? (Maintained at taxpayer expense of £334million a year).

Only a bunch of dumb Americans would be stupid enough to commit that glaring an oversight.

The Cracker Unknown said...

"I don't think the swineherd model of government works for human beings."

Not for human beings, but Democrats dig it. "Swineherd model of government" is perfectly descriptive of our current situation. I'm going to use it often.

Owen said...

Temujin @ 10:56: "...You can get arrested just by someone pointing their finger at you and making the same awful sound as the pod people in 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'. Indeed, sometimes I wake up and think the pods have taken over."

You mean, I'm not the only one who has had that thought?!?

Not sure whether to be reassured or panicked.

ARM @ 10:59 (re Merkel mindset): Interesting thought indeed. A lasting trace of the poison dispensed behind the Curtain?

AReasonableMan said...

Anglelyne said...
Fred Drinkwater: The Economist, like Scientific American, was once an excellent source.

Oh, don't remind me about SciAm. I get so depressed whenever I recall the SciAm of my youth.


I agree, strongly, on Scientific American, less so on the Economist. If you grade on a curve, i.e. relative to its peers, the Economist has the best reporting available, much broader than either the WSJ or NYT. I read a few foreign papers, only in English unfortunately, and I don't think there is a better source of information. Obviously they have a strong bias in favor of the financial industry, even more than the WSJ, which regularly publishes articles fretting that financialization of the economy is killing the golden goose (US industry). There was even an article the other day in the WSJ suggesting that the growth of the finance industry is destabilizing the global economy by essentially financializing every major component of the economy. You won't find an article like that in the Economist.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
"Did everyone miss this cheap ploy to aim all shots at "elitism" against politicians (especially left wing ones) when we're talking about a society that still has a queen and royal family? (Maintained at taxpayer expense of £334million a year)."

I haven't seen a discussion on this issue. What to they do? Seems like a special tax on tabloids to support the crown would be more fitting and just. Other than giving Obama a chance to humiliate himself again what have they done since they were removed from effective power?

On the other hand $334 million sterling for absolutely nothing is a far better investment than 77.4 billion dollars for the department of education in the US that provides us with massive negative value.

Unknown said...

Interesting how Trump imitates a populist so well, while being a member of the Oligarchy. How easily fooled the sheeple are. Maybe he does have magical powers of persuasion...over the easily fooled, disgruntled and disaffected. Too bad they don't realize that it is people like Trump that helped lock them in their circumstances. While the idea of revolutionary change may be the right track, following the Oligarch to get you out of your serfdom, is dumb.

FullMoon said...

Phil 3:14 said... [hush]​[hide comment]

I'm 53, lost my job at the mill when it shut down three years ago, have no desire to learn a new trade, filed for disability and now survive on 40 oxycontin a month and reality TV.

Damn elites!!


Pretty clever, Phil. Write more about how a 50 year old mill worker finds a new trade in a mill town.I suppose everybody else who worked at the mill is in the same boat? How about how he loses his home also? Maybe poverty creates friction in the household. Divorce? Murder/suicide?

I guess those ten extra oxys are for party time, eh?

You may not be an "elite", Phil. But, you are not as smart as you think you are.



Fred Drinkwater said...

Angelyne,
We saved every issue, and I read most cover to cover, back in the 60s. Then I discovered a library with hardbound archives back to the 20s, (maybe?). Oh frabjous day!

Michael said...

ARM

Your observation of Merkel's east German upbringing is on the money. That topic should be more carefully mined.

I recommend skipping the Economist entirely and substituting the FT. Available daily and their weekend edition is a trove of great book, music and art reviews.

tim in vermont said...

Interesting how Trump imitates a populist so well, while being a member of the Oligarchy. How easily fooled the sheeple are. Maybe he does have magical powers of persuasion...over the easily fooled, disgruntled and disaffected. Too bad they don't realize that it is people like Trump that helped lock them in their circumstances. While the idea of revolutionary change may be the right track, following the Oligarch to get you out of your serfdom, is dumb.

Right. What we need to get out of the bind we are in is the establishment that Hillary represents! We need more of it, and harder please!

Hillary of course is no member of the "Oligarchy," perish the thought and heavens forfend! She is just the person who thought it would be a great idea to destabilize Syria with US weapons and to topple Qadaffy with US forces to create a giant refugee crisis. No, she is as innocent as a June fawn in an organic meadow!

grackle said...

The European Union is simply Progressivism writ large. It’s all there: open borders, centralized command, anti-democratic methods, arbitrary decisions that affect millions, political correctness, virtue-signaling as a basis for domestic and foreign policy, an elite that makes the decisions which is insulated from its decisions, etc., ad infinitum. And American taxpayers have been subsidizing this European nonsense since WW2.

Indeed, it would be difficult to find anything BUT precisely dovetailing parallels between Brexit and the Trump Movement, unless of course one of your main traits is repeated heated denial of the obvious.

The Remains have declared bad times are coming because of Brexit and now they’ll set about trying to make sure that happens. Stupid voters must be punished.

As for ill effects on stocks, the real shocker will come when Yellen finally has to raise the rate and stop printing money, although I’m sure THAT particular decision will be delayed until after Trump takes office. You know – Obama’s legacy. But they are flirting with economic catastrophe by doing so. Runaway inflation or worse – the big bugaboo which is hardly ever mentioned – deflation.

Trump will discover then that the previous tenants of the Whitehouse left a pile of shit for him to clean up.

Stocks have been living on borrowed time, in a bubble if you will – a correction is inevitable.

hombre said...

Thanks for that. It's nice for us here in the colonies to learn that Brexit was all about tax cuts in Britain and not about graft and the overpaid bureaucrats at the EU imposing their will on member nations. Lol.

mikee said...

No, the "stay" arguments were explicitly rejected in this vote, not just the people making those arguments. I believe this vote is a macroscopic example of the old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The populace saw that the arguments were lies, the lies were propagated by the elites, and both should be rejected.

buwaya puti said...

I find the Economist and its ilk entirely unnecessary these days. If I want data and charts I can get anything I want straight from the sources or intermediaries, and interpret it as I like. If there is an interesting article out there from any source, my web of sites and references will bring it to my attention. If I want news and analysis of any land, nearly, there are the local newspapers and sites, or those of their neighbors. On technology and industry, there are likewise the trades.
When I was young I haunted the university magazine rack, precisely in order to grab the Economist, Fortune, the WSJ, the Times, the FT, and the like. Now its unnecessary.

tim in vermont said...

I'm 53, lost my job at the mill when it shut down three years ago, have no desire to learn a new trade, filed for disability and now survive on 40 oxycontin a month and reality TV.

Damn elites!!


Trump voters are lazy and shiftless. He loves the "poorly educated" for God's sake! These kinds of voters can't be trusted to have a voice in national decisions, he probably blames the loss of his job on the fact that Mexicans are brown! I am sure that if Mexico were purest white Europeans, and working for pennies on the dollar doing the job he used to make a decent living doing, and selling their products back into the US market, these Trump voters wouldn't have any resentment at all whatsoever!

mockturtle said...

Ever since then the aristocracy has been creeping back into power.

Right after the Revolution, in fact. The likes of Franklin & Jefferson [and even Adams] basked in the luxury of the courts of Europe, being lured into the very pleasures and aristocratic privilege they had stood against.

Unknown said...

Where are all those conservative Constitutionalists that advocated that only "property owners" be allowed the vote. I recall hearing how the unwashed masses were too dumb to vote. What happened to the Constitutionalists? Are they in hiding now that this stark democratic exercise was so successful and embraced by conservatives? I recall hearing how democracy was merely "mob rule".

Unknown said...

What happened to the "tyranny of the masses"? I love how democracy is embraced by conservatives when the issue is one they agree with.

"We are not a democracy!" they shouted.

tim in vermont said...

Where are all those conservative Constitutionalists that advocated that only "property owners" be allowed the vote. I recall hearing how the unwashed masses were too dumb to vote. What happened to the Constitutionalists?

They probably flipped sides as quickly as you did "Unknown"!

Birkel said...

Britain has a constitution?

Unknown is now writing things previously unknown.

Irony. Meter. Broken.

tim in vermont said...

"Unknown" knows nothing about Britain. She thinks that there are large numbers of Brits completely unaware of the EU and what it is. She thinks that they all believe that the little people and faeries that live in the wood made it illegal to sell beer by the pint.

Unknown said...

I haven't flipped sides. I still think democracy is great. I do think it's interesting how the "Constitutionalists" are oddly silent, do they still think only property owners should be allowed the vote? How about Tea Party Congressman Yoho waxing eloquent about the Founding Fathers and voting?

Unknown said...

No one is claiming Britain has a constitution, but nice try. I'm talking about the concept of democracy and how conservatives here who previously claimed the unwashed masses shouldn't vote are now lauding how a democratic process in Great Britain is wonderful. It's the typical hypocrisy we see so often and I'm pointing it out.

Michael K said...

Because she lived behind the Berlin wall and was essentially a prisoner in her own country she may be unusually sensitive on the open borders issue, locked into a way of thinking that has become counterproductive.

I will add my appreciation for a good observation. You may well be correct (I almost said "right").

As far as the Royal Family is concerned, they are extremely rich and could do quite well without the subsidy but probably are being rewarded for their role in the tourist industry. I must say that Diana's boys are much better role models for the next generation than Charles and Ann and Margaret. Of course, Margaret was prevented from marrying the man she loved (Michelle would understand) and lived a rather dissolute life afterward,

khesanh0802 said...

The most telling statement in the article: "The high-priesthood in Brussels has lost touch with ordinary citizens—and not just in Britain." The know-it -alls seem to think that the British are incapable of adapting their business models to changed circumstances. Obviously the Europeans have been buying British goods at a healthy rate, and if we think the British Banks and financial companies are not going to compete with the Germans - who will be carrying the burden of Greece, Portugal and others- we are seriously mistaken. Think of the ease of doing business for all the hi-tech companies without having to worry about the EU's capricious regulation.

The crying I hear and read is by those who have, for so long, thought they were smarter than "ordinary" people. They are having that belief shoved where the sun don't shine and it hurts.

Birkel said...

To be clear:

U.S. Constitutional law does not apply in Great Britain, Unknown. Any arguments based on the U.S. Constitution are therefore inappropriate, Unknown.

What's the Matter with Kansas was written by a Progressive, Unknown. It is Progressives that dislike democracy and wish elitists project onto the population policies public does not want.

Britain joining the EU was undemocratic, Unknown. Progressives wanted that outcome.

You are a fool, UnknownInga.

Unknown said...

You are a moron Birkel. No one suggested that our Constitution has any bearing on Britain. The discussion is about democracy as a concept. Democracy as a concept is not isolated to the US. The concept is universal.

Unknown said...

So yoo hoo, Consitutionalists, what do you think about Great Britain's excellent exercise in democracy? Do you think that it's a good idea to limit voting to land owners in Great Britain too as you have suggested for us US voters?

Unknown said...

Oh yes, one more thought. Isn't it a bit elitist to suggest limiting voting rights to land owners as Tea Party folks were so fond of doing a while back?

buwaya puti said...

Actually, its not clear how a property requirement would have affected the Brexit vote. There are way more landowners in Britain outside the cities. There is an income split between leave and remain, but its not a clean one at all. Salaried urban people in Britain mostly rent, as they do in San Francisco.

Birkel said...

the conversation is about democracy and Unknown once again usesthe term "Constitutionalists".

UnknownInga is odd.

Birkel said...

Citations for the Tea Party claim so we can see how vapid your claim is.

Unknown said...

Man, you are dense Birkel. Are you truly so stupid or trying to deflect? I hope you're not so dumb, really I do, for the sake of your progeny.

Unknown said...

1:05 PM Birkel, lazy man.

Unknown said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-dont-let-renters-vote/

Here's the full quote, from Tea Party Nation Radio:
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."

Hyphenated American said...

"No one is claiming Britain has a constitution, but nice try. I'm talking about the concept of democracy and how conservatives here who previously claimed the unwashed masses shouldn't vote are now lauding how a democratic process in Great Britain is wonderful. It's the typical hypocrisy we see so often and I'm pointing it out."

You are an idiot. Conservatives are saying that constitution exists to protect our rights from the government arbitrary power, and that even the majority can not take those rights away from you. There is no constitution in Britain, and all rights are conditional and can be taken away by the European buerucracy. The referendum in Britain did not take away any rights, instead it made it possible for the British people to become more free.

The "liberal" position is also quite consistent, they support taking away human rights by any means necessary, they support ththe growth of the power of the government.

Unknown said...

Again, for the slow witted, the focus is on the concept of democracy. Sigh.

Unknown said...

"The referendum in Britain did not take away any rights, instead it made it possible for the British people to become more free."

Yet, Tea Party conservatives advocated taking that right away from US voters, with the suggestion that only land owners should have the right to vote.

Unknown said...

How can one admire the democratic process in Great Britain while at the same time advocate for less voting rights here in the US? See a disconnect here?

cubanbob said...

Unknown said...
I haven't flipped sides. I still think democracy is great. I do think it's interesting how the "Constitutionalists" are oddly silent, do they still think only property owners should be allowed the vote? How about Tea Party Congressman Yoho waxing eloquent about the Founding Fathers and voting?

6/25/16, 1:05 PM"

And the problem with that is? Land owners were the taxpayers back then. Limiting the vote to private sector taxpayers is still the right way to go.

Funny thing about the UK vote is that the elites, that is those who are depended on government for their livelihood were the most ardent Remainers. Those who were more hurt by staying in the EU voted to Leave. The Imperial City voted for it's rice bowl and provinces voted for theirs. The Imperial City is shocked that the peasants dare step out above their station.

damikesc said...

Where are all those conservative Constitutionalists that advocated that only "property owners" be allowed the vote.

In your mind?

I recall hearing how the unwashed masses were too dumb to vote. What happened to the Constitutionalists? Are they in hiding now that this stark democratic exercise was so successful and embraced by conservatives? I recall hearing how democracy was merely "mob rule".

Who, SPECIFICALLY, said that?

What happened to the "tyranny of the masses"? I love how democracy is embraced by conservatives when the issue is one they agree with.

We tend to accept votes, even if we disagree. Wish Progs could do the same.

Yet, Tea Party conservatives advocated taking that right away from US voters, with the suggestion that only land owners should have the right to vote.

Who, SPECIFICALLY, called for that? I saw your video. He opined on something. He didn't, say, have a temper tantrum in the House of Representatives because due process is hard...

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

My, my! So many posts from 'Unknown' sources.

Unknown said...

Cubanbob,
So do you think that Great Britian is wrong to allow every citizen a vote? You like the outcome of the Brexit referendum, do you think the outcome would've been the same if only private sector taxpayers were allowed the vote? What about retried people who live on Social Security here in the US or those retired people in Great Britain who no longer pay taxes, should they be barred from voting? So you don't think it's elitist to deny those who don't pay taxes any longer the vote?

Unknown said...

"Who, SPECIFICALLY, called for that?"

Tea Party Nation President: Only Allowing Property Owners To Vote “Makes A Lot Of Sense”

Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips recently hosted a radio program where he declared that Americans who do not own property have less of a stake in the community and suggested, in the past, it made sense to deprive such citizens of the right to vote. The tone-deaf statement is not significant because it represents the view of the Tea Party at large (it doesn’t), but is important because it evidences a serious problem for the movement: without a formal hierarchy, various “leaders” associated with the Tea Party can quickly damage the larger brand with their absurd comments.


http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-party-nation-president-only-allowing-property-owners-to-vote-“makes-a-lot-of-sense”/

So you reject Judson Phillips suggestion?

Hagar said...

Mmm. England has a constitution even though Mr. Churchill no longer is around to expound it.

Unknown said...

Damikesc
Here's another person who advocates that only taxpayers (or land owners) have the right to vote.

Cubanbob said...
"And the problem with that is? Land owners were the taxpayers back then. Limiting the vote to private sector taxpayers is still the right way to go."

Unknown said...

A petition calling for a 2nd Brexit referendum now has over 2 million votes.

Unknown said...

Who first suggested the "United States of Europe"?

Robert Cook said...

"National Socialism created Hitler – or was it the other way around? Socialism ain’t populism."


And Naziism isn't socialism, anymore than The People's Republic of China is "the people's" or a "republic."

After a century of advertising--propaganda put to commercial use--haven't people wised up enough to realize that advertising one's product as "something" does not mean it is that "something." (A rhetorical question, really; it's obvious people are as easily conned as ever by the simplest manipulations. Look how many Americans think of our illegal aggressive imperial wars in the middle east have something to do with "saving" or "liberating" the people in each respective country from tyranny.)

Fred Drinkwater said...

Unknown @ 2:48 thinks Great Britain has citizens. Uh huh.

Robert Cook said...

A view from the left on the meaning and significance of Brexit.

And another.

Robert Cook said...

"There is no constitution in Britain, and all rights are conditional and can be taken away by the European bureaucracy."

Don't be naive; our rights are also entirely conditional, as their ongoing diminishment should illustrate. They're conditional upon a well-informed electorate and a government that is answerable to the people. We have neither. (I corrected your spelling of "bureaucracy").

Unknown said...

Are people in the UK Citizens or Subjects?
From 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her Crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC).


British subject - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terry said...

Those two views are the same, Robert Cook.
Here is the LA Times on the Brexit vote:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-klaas-dirsus-leave-victory-in-britain-20160623-snap-story.html
I find the LA Times editorials to be more entertaining than the NY Times editorials. TH LA Times ed's seem to be written while on the edge of hysteria. They are liberal pearl-clutching at its finest.

tim in vermont said...

Robert, they are both collectivist ideologies which put the state above all, and both of them hate, as Mussolini put it: "Liberalism." In case you don't understand it, "liberalism" in this context is individual freedom and free markets. Both fascism and communism reject the idea of human freedom.

You can't see that so people keep laughing at you; that's what they are laughing about.

tim in vermont said...

A petition calling for a 2nd Brexit referendum now has over 2 million votes

So none of them voted this week? Shame on them. Or is this more of the Madison "solidarity" democracy, where you keep having votes until you get the result you want, after which voting stops?


Again, for the slow witted, the focus is on the concept of democracy. Sigh - 'Unknown'

yes, the focus must be on anything but Hillary's temperament, judgement, qualifications, or disqualifications for the presidency. Isn't that your purpose here Unknown, to keep everybody from discussing Hillary's role in bringing this crisis in Europe about through her war mongering?

rcocean said...

One reason the Brits voted to leave is the "remain" side was so fucking dishonest. They kept framing it as an Economic issue when it wasn't. The UK can negotiate trade deals and won't be any worse off then they are now.

The countries in the EU will still want to import/export to the UK.

The screeching about "racism" "xenophobia" "bigotry" provides the clue about the real motivation for the "Remain" side.

damikesc said...

Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips

Who in the blue hell is "Judson Phillips"?

Here's another person who advocates that only taxpayers (or land owners) have the right to vote.

OK, message board posters.

SOLID argument.

So do you think that Great Britian is wrong to allow every citizen a vote?

I'm not bob, but I have no problem with citizens voting.

A petition calling for a 2nd Brexit referendum now has over 2 million votes.

They lost the vote 2 days ago. It's always hard to tell when we should respect the voice of the voters.

In your world, we should have votes on every issues on a daily basis.

Who first suggested the "United States of Europe"?

French politicians.

And Naziism isn't socialism, anymore than The People's Republic of China is "the people's" or a "republic."

Can you expound on the "conservative" aspects of Nazi philosophy? Was it the breaking up of department stores? The labor laws?

...or do you subscribe to the fallacy that "anti-Semitism = right-wing"?

I didn't notice Hitler signing alliances with capitalist countries. He did sign them with a Socialist Fascist country and a Communist country and a military dictatorship.

damikesc said...

So none of them voted this week? Shame on them. Or is this more of the Madison "solidarity" democracy, where you keep having votes until you get the result you want, after which voting stops?

It's like old Communism truism: "One Man, One Vote, One Time"

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

Why should anyone think the "Elites" know best or above all, aren't looking after THEIR interests instead of OUR interests.

Talk about naive!

Populism = Democracy. If you want the elites to rule, and despise "populism" than stop voting "little man" and let the elites rule.

Miriam said...

No Damikesc,

It was Winston Churchill.

You don't know who Judson Phillips is? Really? So uninformed, yikes. Its a bit disingenuous to deny that this was a very popular idea among tea party types, back when they were very active. Limiting the votes of other Americans, it's still happening.

Miriam said...

Great discussion today, lots of Unknowns, welcome!

Terry said...

The never hysterical Megan McCardle:
. . . nationalism and place still matter, and that elites forget this at their peril. A lot people do not view their country the way some elites do: as though the nation were something like a rental apartment -- a nice place to live, but if there are problems, or you just fancy a change, you’ll happily swap it for a new one.

In many ways, members of the global professional class have started to identify more with each other than they have with the fellow residents of their own countries. Witness the emotional meltdown many American journalists have been having over Brexit.

I disagree with her use of the word "nationalism" (I would have written 'patriotism'), but otherwise she is dead on.
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-24/-citizens-of-the-world-nice-thought-but

EMD said...

Trump seems to embrace the concept of Eminent Domain. How elitist.

Yeah, he sucks on that issue. But I doubt Hillary is to the right of him. And don't get me started on her stance on Citizens United.

EMD said...

"Did everyone miss this cheap ploy to aim all shots at "elitism" against politicians (especially left wing ones) when we're talking about a society that still has a queen and royal family? (Maintained at taxpayer expense of £334million a year).

Only a bunch of dumb Americans would be stupid enough to commit that glaring an oversight."

Excuse me? I'd love to see the Mountbatten-Windsors get tossed out on their candy asses.

Robert Cook said...

Damikesc:

Who said Naziism was "conservative?" What does "conservative" even mean in this context? Who said "conservativism" is always supportive of the ideals of freedom and collective decision-making, (i.e., democracy), or that any repressive or tyrannical state cannot be, by definition, "conservative" (or right-wing), and, by definition, must be and is always somehow "leftist")?

"Conservatism" is just another name for traditionalism, wanting things to be as they always have been, opposing change. It is not a synonym for "love of liberty and individual rights."

grackle said...

< And Naziism isn't socialism, anymore than The People's Republic of China is "the people's" or a "republic."

Really? I read history and the Nazis look like socialists to me. It had a party chairman in Hitler and all planning originated from that office.

Private ownership of industry and business was in name only. The Nazis controlled all means of production and controlled all the distribution of the fruits of that production. Such a system is certainly NOT capitalism. Some excerpts from an article originating from Austria:

… it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936.

The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership. This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.


http://tinyurl.com/ofs9fkq

Rhythm and Balls said...

Can you expound on the "conservative" aspects of Nazi philosophy?

Fanatically exclusionary nationalism, a reversion to atavistic German paganism in its rawest form, the reverence for a personality cult figure over newer and more progressive political and governmental structures, a love of Darwinistic power over the mercy given to the weak emphasized by the Christianity that displaced Teutonic paganism. Take your pick, it doesn't end. The only thing progressive about Hitler and his movement was its enthusiasm for technology, and even science - despite perverting it for racialized means. Everything else was as regressive as it gets: Tribalism, paganism, mass violence against the "outsider." You have to reach very far back into human history to find a normative expression for these things. Hitler revived them with full force. That's what was remarkable. He wasn't just a conservative; he was an Ultra-Conservative. He reached further back into German history than any modern country had ever done before in order to tap into the zeal for doing what he was doing.

It was great fun and very old-fashioned. Just look at how violent undiscovered tribes (or even chimps) are today if you want to find more traditional parallels when it comes to murder rates and mobilizing networks of related individuals for that purpose, the purpose of killing off the outsider (auslander).

Hyphenated American said...

Rhythm, I am not sure you comprehend that you described quite a few "progressive" leaders, like Mao, Stalin, pol pot, and the entire North Korean dynasty. What you fail to comprehend is that socialism and fanatical nationalism and cult of leader are not on the opposing sides, but instead on the same side. American conservatism is antithetical to all of this, since it is based on an idea of individual freedom. This is why the greatest proponents of individual freedom, Milton Friedman and Fredrick Hayek were and are popular with conservatives, not the so-called "liberals" or "progressives".

Hyphenated American said...

"And Naziism isn't socialism, anymore than The People's Republic of China is "the people's" or a "republic."


Explain why you think nazi Germany was not socialistic.

Hyphenated American said...

"Did everyone miss this cheap ploy to aim all shots at "elitism" against politicians (especially left wing ones) when we're talking about a society that still has a queen and royal family? (Maintained at taxpayer expense of £334million a year)."

Stupid ignorant liberals don't know that the queen and the royal house have zero political power in Great Britain.

rcocean said...

Judas Priest - another discussion of the Nazis.

You guys are dull, dull, dull.

I'm outta here.

buwaya puti said...

Hitler and Co. were very modern fellows indeed, in European terms. They were the ultimate Romantics, born from the seed of Rousseau and friends. Atavisms were popular among the romantics, as were non-religious spiritual cults. This was born out of the anthropology of the day, seeking to find an authentic expression of human nature in man's early state. True conservatives were the standard- Christian religious/aristocratic royalists of the old school.
The Italian nationalists, way before Mussolini, were of the same lineage. Anticlerical, atavistic, collectivist, anti-traditional, "scientific", worshipers of a cult of the folk. There are hints of Hitler in a heck of a lot of 19th century sorts, from Tolstoy to Garibaldi. Marx it's arguable was part of the same milieu.

tim in vermont said...

Fanatically exclusionary nationalism, a reversion to atavistic German paganism in its rawest form,

So it's the same old argument between national socialism and international socialism, which is the only real difference. Both are collectivist ideologies and you can't get a collectivist to acknowledge that alternatives to socialism of both kinds exist.

the reverence for a personality cult figure over newer and more progressive political and governmental structures

You mean like the "invisible primary" choosing Hillary and good liberals lining up to row for Hillary like so many galley slaves except they seem to like being used?

Rhythm and Balls said...

If you suck a dick, Hyphenated, does that not make you gay?

What you fail to comprehend is that progress and/or evolution has led to lower mass murder rates, and that progressive institutions, including government, have been a crucial part of that.

What you also fail to comprehend is that political "freedom" wasn't some conservative idea. It became an ideological goal with Locke, who didn't write treatises on the ancient freedoms of long ago. He had to argue for them anew. Progress. Not tradition.

Friedman and Hayek abuse and misappropriate Locke because he wrote in a pre-industrial era where extremes of wealth were not yet de-linked from the power of the monarch, and they want to pretend that the power of industrialists and capitalists over the people is legitimate simply because they are not traditionally monarchs. In essence, they want to pretend that industrialization hasn't exacerbated the extreme power differentials between those who run it and the people at large. But that is because like most conservatives, they lie to themselves and have to tell a myth to succeed politically or in the ideological market.

Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were simply megalomaniacs who wanted to replace Hitler's "genetic" tribes with "ideological" tribes to decimate. They came from cultures where continuing progress wherein rights and liberty are concerned were not the norm. I don't know what you call them. You can call them communists, but not progressives. Maybe they thought of themselves as national or even "international" progressives. But like all megalomaniacs they had to be ideologically flexible and diverse. The impulse to kill off "the other" or to resort to street justice is not a progressive one though, I can tell you that. Is Trump appealing to progressives when he brags about being able to shoot someone on 5th Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it? I don't think so.

And pardon the initial insult, if you don't mind. Something's making me a little crankier today than usual.

tim in vermont said...

Conservatism" is just another name for traditionalism, wanting things to be as they always have been, opposing change. It is not a synonym for "love of liberty and individual rights."

Right, there is no such strain of belief in the United States which goes by the label "conservative" since those were the values of our revolution, and we would like to conserver them, just Nazis and good left leaning liberals like yourself.

Hyphenated American said...

"Yet, Tea Party conservatives advocated taking that right away from US voters, with the suggestion that only land owners should have the right to vote"

As I said, sigh, the constitution is our protection from the arbitrary power of the government. Brexit vote clearly is building the road to rebuild that protection. The argument on who should be allowed to vote is a deferent argument on what the government is allowed to do.

Let me explain for the dumb-witted.


Question 1: who should be allowed to vote on whether to kill all the homosexuals?

Question 2: can the government be allowed to kill all homosexuals, no matter how many people voted for such murder?

The key question to conservatives is the second one, this is where the constitution comes into play.
You want to debate the first question.

Do you now understand the issue better?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Stupid ignorant liberals don't know that the queen and the royal house have zero political power in Great Britain.

Stupid ignorant multi-colored post-modern blobs probably never travel at all and don't realize that the monarchy have immense cultural resonance on that island, which is certainly a form of power.

But if you want to pretend to disagree then I'll just remember to always take your complaints about the influence of Hollywood and the media with a grain of salt.

tim in vermont said...

The impulse to kill off "the other" or to resort to street justice is not a progressive one though, I can tell you that. Is Trump appealing to progressives when he brags about being able to shoot someone on 5th Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it? I don't think so

No, it's "progressives" who are bussing mobs to Trump rallies because he has the impudence to have a rally in Chicago, for example. Remind me of what the brownshirts did for Hitler again? It was a "progressive" who tried to kill Trump last week.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You mean like the "invisible primary" choosing Hillary and good liberals lining up to row for Hillary like so many galley slaves except they seem to like being used?

Ah! Ah ah! Somebody's getting distracted and losing focus!

But let's say I was to presume some merit in your point. Between Hillary and Bernie, which candidate do you think was more progressive?

Which one had followers who kept talking about "pie in the sky socialist bullshit?"

Which one had a pretty good claim to the votes of "conservative democrats?"

Which one denied gays marriage rights until just last year or so?

There are progressives and conservatives in both parties. For all Trump's nationalism, do you actually believe the Republicans clamoring for his concern for the American worker and many other not-very-"conservative" stances are actually conservatives?

They're not. And he's not very much of one, either.

Terry said...

"Fanatically exclusionary nationalism"
Like in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire?
Fanatically exclusionary nationalism is not a conservative trait, anywhere, and is only Right Wing in the European (not American) sense of the phrase.
In the 30's, Stalin sent out orders to commies across the world that ANY form of socialism not controlled by the politburo was to be called fascism.
You sound like you learned everything you know about politics and history by reading The Nation, R&B.

Gahrie said...

Limiting the votes of other Americans, it's still happening.

It has been happening since before we adopted our Constitution. There is no right to vote, Constitutional or otherwise. None of the amendments dealing with voting grant a right to vote, they merely outlaw discrimination on race, gender, condition of servitude, and age for those over 18, and make poll taxes illegal.

You know who were the experts on limiting the right to vote? Democrats.

Rhythm and Balls said...

No, it's "progressives" who are bussing mobs...

Oh, so you flinch from answering the question and instead change the subject to one where leadership doesn't matter. Only what mobs do matters. Got it.

Trump is speaking for his people.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Was Hillary a Goldwater Girl or was Bernie?

Bernie was getting shackled by Chicago cops for protesting segregation while Hillary was just getting done campaigning for Barry Goldwater.

But sure. Let's pretend she has no conservative influences in her.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It was a "progressive" who tried to kill Trump last week.

Was it also a "progressive" who killed Archduke Ferdinand?

I can't remember.

But HItler thought him to be a great scapegoat!

What pretzels must be twisted to go this route. Individual acts of violence somehow make the ideological concerns of the leader obsolete.

Or maybe they justify them.

What powers would you love granting to Trump if he could claim it necessary to invoke them, given the "danger" surrounding his fog of dissemblance.

I know what powers HItler invoked when he blamed the Jews for burning the Reichstag.

tim in vermont said...

Trump is not a conservative. He would be a mainstream Democrat in the 1960s, he is not far to the right of Bill Clinton, if at all. I have never considered Trump a "conservative." What sticks in my craw is Cookie trying to insinuate that a political ideology that bases it's core beliefs on the Bill of Rights has anything to do with National Socialism.

But here we are, like the cast of Lost, the survivors stuck on this island after the plane crashed, trying to make the best of it. A lot of us are still pretending that the plane hasn't crashed and we will have already begun our descent to Sydney.

In those conditions, I support Trump, reluctantly, extremely reluctantly, but we are between a rock and a hard place, and I choose the hard place.

tim in vermont said...

What powers would you love granting to Trump if he could claim it necessary to invoke them, given the "danger" surrounding his fog of dissemblance.

Maybe it was extremely unwise to roll over for Obama, given the probability that either Hillary or Trump will inherit those powers? Naah!

tim in vermont said...

Trump has carved out a new coalition, and conservatives like Chuck, whose rice bowl is threatened, have been shitting themselves ever since. After Brexit, I think Hillary is shitting herself too.

The Cracker Unknown said...

Hitler thought Gavrilo Princip was a great scapegoat? Might want to hit Google a second time. Or read a fucking book.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Hitler thought Gavrilo Princip was a great scapegoat?

“Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging nations once more into a world war...

The Cracker Unknown said...

"Excuse me? I'd love to see the Mountbatten-Windsors get tossed out on their candy asses."

Me too. An English Republic of citizens, not a faux kingdom of EU subjects.

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

Me too. An English Republic of citizens...

Yeah, right. This will ever happen.

How many of you crackers and raisinettes have actually been to the place...?

The Cracker Unknown said...

Princip was a Jewish financier? Thought he was just some Serbian hothead.

Anyone who thinks Princip "started" WWI has a woefully shallow grasp oh history.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ok, no, I'm wrong about Princip, but I'm pretty sure there was a Jew involved in either that conspiracy or prior to WWII that was handy for what Hitler was up to.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Anyone who thinks...

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It matters what HItler made a case about.

The Cracker Unknown said...

Was there three years ago and, like you, got a deep understanding of the British psyche and polity from my intense and lengthy immersion into British life and culture.

Oh, and a cool poster book from the London Transport Museum shop.

The Cracker Unknown said...

"It doesn't matter what anyone thinks."

And that's the ball game, fans!

Time to mow the lawn.

Gahrie said...

How many of you crackers and raisinettes have actually been to the place...?

I lived there for half my life prior to the age of 18.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 250   Newer› Newest»