Every time anybody tries to do anything sensible, a whole swarm of activists and judges collude to explain why you have to resign yourself to national suicide instead.
Dear electorate: Oh dear, what a shame, nothing we can do about it. We tried our best but [courts/EU/international treaties/the UN/the constitution/act of God/quantum physics] intervened and won't let us. Really this has nothing to do with us, we couldn't foresee it happening, we can't change it, and in no way were we quietly hoping something of this sort would happen to make us change the policy we are really really very earnest about! Keep voting for us!
I think it just comes down to the fact that populist movements are seen as threat to the political class of Europe because they are concerned primarily with a proper historical understanding of what the nation is and what the state is for, which is the preservation of the nation and the defense of its people and heritage.
Europe's elites hate that, because their political project is explicitly post-national. They want to destroy the nation as such and replace it with supra national institutions governed by a global elite.
Well said and true. I read Karl Popper's book to understand their position and came away believing his positions were taken out of context. Somehow, the elites only lift concerns about ultra-nationalism from his book; thus, we are to look right for the boogeyman but not left. Or perhaps they are well aware they are creating a new fascist order and use the smoke screen of 'inclusivity' to get away with it.
They're Marxist. For example, just look at the George Floyd incident in the US.
You have to put it in the context of a post Soviet Marxist revival. This was dramatically reinforced by the George Floyd affair, which elevated a habitual criminal to martyrdom. "White" Westerners have been pressured to do penance for several decades.
As if personally responsible for decisions made by those in power centuries ago, they are expected to tolerate "reciprocal discrimination" presented as "positive action" and make reparations for sins of the past. If they stand up for themselves and protest against revisionist absurdities, they risk being accused of "privilege blindness", etc. (Marxist conspiracy theorists traditionally allude to oppressive "structures" into which only the ideologically initiated have full insight.)
They hate conservatives (which are basically moderates of 15 years ago) because "conservatives" are skeptical of utopias, wary of unintended consequences, and unafraid to call things by their proper names.
A correct diagnosis of the oppressive world we live in, but I remain utterly baffled by the point of it all: even if, for reasons of accrual of wealth and influence, the Clerisy class wants to operate on the wider canvas of a post-national order, their interests would be sufficiently served in that respect by transnational trade rules and free movement for them and only those useful to the accumulation of their wealth and prestige.
One could understand the desire to allow in Indian computer geeks, but I do not see how, in particular, the arrival of millions of wholly unskilled, uncivilised and unassimilable people are of any use to anyone: the scale of the arrival of such people has surpassed any need for drudge labour and many of the arrivals can't/won't even do that, and the Gulf States show no compunction in keeping such drones as are necessary in a lower status, where the panoply of largesse available in Europe is simply unavailable.
The situation has now deteriorated to the point where some of the favoured playgrounds of the Clerisy are visibly degraded: you would be unwise to wear an expensive watch on the streets of the West End of London. The very rich can to some extent insulate themselves from this, but most mysteriously of all, they have below them an army of relatively poorly paid helpers, such as academics and civil servants, ideologically committed to the destruction of conditions that allowed middle-class life in Europe to be tranquil, which was one of the crucial distinctions between life here and in the Third World. Why are they subjecting not just us, but themselves to this insanity?
"They're Marxist...They hate conservatives ...because 'conservatives' are skeptical of utopias, wary of unintended consequences, and unafraid to call things by their proper names."
In that vein, this recently published article might help make sense of it, although here the "neocons" are being discussed rather than their mirror images on the other side of the fulcrum.
Good analysis. Up until seven years ago, I knew nothing about Marxism. But my then high achieving high schooler was all in on Marxism. He was aghast I didn't know the names of Marcuse or Hegel. Well, I do now. During readings at mass, I can pick up bits and pieces that Marx lifted and twisted. Of course, he didn't plagiarize the concept of forgiveness and grace. He kept the sin part, and got rid of the rest. As bad as we have suffered, the export of Marxist ideology led to the death of millions in the Soviet Union, Mao was inspired by Lenin murdering even more and Pol Pot's murderous rampage came after being radicalized in France.
Lawfare and judicial coups must be stopped. Who would bet against the polish NGO receiving funding from America or Soros? Send these “asylum seekers” straight to their homes for cultural enrichment.
anything is possible, perhaps the German government funds it. nobody really knows about the financing of Pro Asyl, which is a really vile organisation and often involved in this kind of chicanery. in an ideal world they would be investigated by prosecutors.
I suspect the voters will know that only one party in Germany will try their very hardest to change all this. We have just one party in the UK which is also working towards the day they have a Parliamentary majority to do similar things.
Something has gone very wrong re “judges” in the western world. It wasn’t meant to be this way. Need to take a hard look at exactly what power various judges have, and how to correct mistakes and over-reach in a timely manner - and that includes removal, and statutory limits on jurisdiction, forced recusal, and removal from the bench - without a convoluted impeachment process.
In Europe, if you want to advance your career as a judge you aim for a position in Brussels. This gives you the incentive to use your current position to optimize your chances to slide into one of those posts.
"After their second push-back, they came into contact with a Polish NGO, which put them up in a hotel and bought them new clothes and mobile phones. They waited until two days after Dobrindt suspended Dublin and then they tried to cross into Germany again, this time via the strictly patrolled train route, which all but guaranteed an interception by German police"
NGO's are enemy combatants. No, that isn't hyperbole.
I disagree, this does set a precedent (although I do understand your context), because it blurs expectations and reality between the law. In other words, if the expectation of the public is that this is legal, then indeed, it is reality.
We have seen this over and over again in the US (like with vaccine mandates). By the time it reaches SCOTUS the damage is already done, despite our SCOTUS having a "conservative" majority. Because of this the public just assumes its legal. And by the time the judiciary actually makes a ruling you then see protestations from the Left like amoeba's squirming under a microscope slide.
So, in effect, Left leaning staes just ignore the ruling and the constitution itself (for example, see sanctuary states). In fact, we even have judges breaking the law in their own courtrooms (physically hiding or escorting an illegal out of the courthouse) in order to prevent ICE from arresting the illegal because they THINK they are entitled to make that decision themselves. And they can get away with it because there are no consequences given the entire judiciary in that state has the same ideology and believe they are both upholding the law and their "moral" duty.
Worst of all is that this faux-precedent then allows further behavior/rulings, in a progressive (pun intended) feedback loop, that allows a never ending adjacents of adjacent rulings/behavior to be codified (and expected) de facto as law.
A businessman sued the Office of Taxation (our IRS, basically) a couple of years ago, and won. Reason was that due to poor communication from the OoT he had paid 125% taxes for one year, and wanted the money back. But despite the court finding in his favour on all points (that the OoT tried to declare all their documentation pertaining the case "classified" didn't help them) the OoT has refused to pay back the money.
So now, aided by the lawfirm he has contracted, he's handed the claim over to. . .
. . .The King's Office of Repossessions. Who has sent them the official letter where they demand access to files to do a full audit of assets and properties.
Which the OoT is refusing, which in a normal case would lead to the King's Sheriff showing up with police and movers to start taking possession of property.
All in all, the system is fighting itself and it is a delight to behold.
> We have seen this over and over again in the US (like with vaccine mandates). By the time it reaches SCOTUS the damage is already done, despite our SCOTUS having a "conservative" majority. Because of this the public just assumes its legal.
I don't know how much the general American public recognizes this, but let me share my data point.
The day that the Biden administration announced the (transparently illegal, overturned by the courts like two days later) vaccine mandate, he announced it at 6pm (ish; I think).
That same day, at 10 am, my employer, a major corporation almost everyone in America has used, and many have likely paid for at some point, announced their own corporate vaccine policy. Prior to this moment, my employer had been pretty open, internally, about not wanting to mandate that. A combination of "what's the point, you're all working from home anyway" and "we'd rather not rock the boat, if we stake any position on this, it'll piss employees off".
After _six months_ of "hey when are you going to mandate vaccines to all my dirty, unvaccinated coworkers?" => [question evasion], my employer announced an internal vaccine policy, that almost exactly matched Biden's. 8 hours before Biden announced the policy. What a coincidence! It's almost as the CEO was psychic!
I'm 100% convinced that what happened here is something like the following:
1) Biden admin decides they're going to do a vaccine mandate
2) Biden admin quietly reaches out to major private employers and tells them the specifics
3) "You better prepare to roll this out, because we're announcing this policy change on XYZ date and you're going to get fined into bankruptcy if you don't do it"
4) Every employer starts preparing to implement these policies, out of fear of consequences
5) Every employer announces policies virtually identical to the Biden admin policy, _before_ Biden announces
6) Biden announces policy
7) Courts immediately overturn policy
8) But the companies already did it, they spent weeks preparing to do it, they're now locked in to pandering to the covidiots they employ, they won't eat the organizational cost of completely reversing a controversial policy without the appearance of being forced to, as a way to deflect blame.
9) And since the companies "totally voluntarily, all on their own, came up with their own private, internal covid policies, which they are totally allowed to do because they're private employers", it doesn't even matter if Biden's policy is illegal, because formally, the government had nothing to do with these companies' policies
Small comfort I guess but it's even worse in Britain.
'Contrary to the party political pycho-drama endlessly fed to European publics, real political agency right across Western Europe – whichever political party is supposedly ‘in power’ – is massively and disproportionately in the hands of a huge high-caste of lefty lawyers. In the mental universe they inhabit, being all ‘social justicey’ and cleverly subverting the seemingly atavistic concerns of rightist politicians (and the non-graduates who vote for them) is viewed as a rather fun (and highly lucrative) intellectual chess game. When you – as a rich lawyer - are personally insulated from the adverse consequences of those social justicey ‘causes’ you champion, it may indeed seem all very professionally satisfying. And this lawfare game now goes on not just within governmental and judicial circles but pretty much everywhere else too.'
Germans, normal ones, must be unbelievably patient people. Their country is rapidly being brought to ruin by foreigners and the children who make up the left in pretty much every country. Another day, another reason why revolutions happen.
“If you want to know how you are governed, this is it: you are governed by manipulating procedural outcomes. It’s perfect. It belongs on someone’s tomb.”
They will soon be putting up statues over by you of our American Judge Boasberg as patron saint of the Cult of the Justices Who Thwart.
Oh well. I remember when there was this remarkably effective organization called "Interpol" that tracked down international money launderers like nobody's business. I used to get all swoony over the movies detailing their relentless precision. Turning off them spigots is the only action that can save Germany now.
Do you not think it possible, that Merz knew all this, and when it fell apart (as he already knew it would) he can shrug his shoulder's and say , 'Well we tried. Those pesky unelected judges eh?'
Well, he and Dobrindt have a good excuse right now to reimpose Dublin. "The court said it's illegal" and so. They're actually not doing that, they're persisting.
All I wanna know is: how do Somalis end up in Poland? After all, a quick look at a world map shows where Somalia and Poland are - and which countries are in between ... Ah well, that's what happens when geography is no longer taught in school, innit like ...
You can replace Germany with any other EU-province save Hungary, Romania and Poland and use the same text.
I understand why you use the terms "asylees" and "asylum seekers"; it's the ones used - wrongly - by media and politicians for three decades now.
The correct word would of course be intruders.
Possibly invaders. Definitiely criminals.
If we are to survive, migration policy needs to be summed up as either of the following phrases; the more humane "No. Out." or (my preference) "Fix bayonets".
Well this article is more about transgenderism/transhumanism, but I am pretty sure we are talking about a number of the same players and intertwined philosophies, especially since the timelines dovetail pretty well.
How A Handful Of Billionaires Created The Transgender "Movement"
Dear electorate: Oh dear, what a shame, nothing we can do about it. We tried our best but [courts/EU/international treaties/the UN/the constitution/act of God/quantum physics] intervened and won't let us. Really this has nothing to do with us, we couldn't foresee it happening, we can't change it, and in no way were we quietly hoping something of this sort would happen to make us change the policy we are really really very earnest about! Keep voting for us!
I think it just comes down to the fact that populist movements are seen as threat to the political class of Europe because they are concerned primarily with a proper historical understanding of what the nation is and what the state is for, which is the preservation of the nation and the defense of its people and heritage.
Europe's elites hate that, because their political project is explicitly post-national. They want to destroy the nation as such and replace it with supra national institutions governed by a global elite.
Well said and true. I read Karl Popper's book to understand their position and came away believing his positions were taken out of context. Somehow, the elites only lift concerns about ultra-nationalism from his book; thus, we are to look right for the boogeyman but not left. Or perhaps they are well aware they are creating a new fascist order and use the smoke screen of 'inclusivity' to get away with it.
Yes. Exactly.
They're Marxist. For example, just look at the George Floyd incident in the US.
You have to put it in the context of a post Soviet Marxist revival. This was dramatically reinforced by the George Floyd affair, which elevated a habitual criminal to martyrdom. "White" Westerners have been pressured to do penance for several decades.
As if personally responsible for decisions made by those in power centuries ago, they are expected to tolerate "reciprocal discrimination" presented as "positive action" and make reparations for sins of the past. If they stand up for themselves and protest against revisionist absurdities, they risk being accused of "privilege blindness", etc. (Marxist conspiracy theorists traditionally allude to oppressive "structures" into which only the ideologically initiated have full insight.)
They hate conservatives (which are basically moderates of 15 years ago) because "conservatives" are skeptical of utopias, wary of unintended consequences, and unafraid to call things by their proper names.
A correct diagnosis of the oppressive world we live in, but I remain utterly baffled by the point of it all: even if, for reasons of accrual of wealth and influence, the Clerisy class wants to operate on the wider canvas of a post-national order, their interests would be sufficiently served in that respect by transnational trade rules and free movement for them and only those useful to the accumulation of their wealth and prestige.
One could understand the desire to allow in Indian computer geeks, but I do not see how, in particular, the arrival of millions of wholly unskilled, uncivilised and unassimilable people are of any use to anyone: the scale of the arrival of such people has surpassed any need for drudge labour and many of the arrivals can't/won't even do that, and the Gulf States show no compunction in keeping such drones as are necessary in a lower status, where the panoply of largesse available in Europe is simply unavailable.
The situation has now deteriorated to the point where some of the favoured playgrounds of the Clerisy are visibly degraded: you would be unwise to wear an expensive watch on the streets of the West End of London. The very rich can to some extent insulate themselves from this, but most mysteriously of all, they have below them an army of relatively poorly paid helpers, such as academics and civil servants, ideologically committed to the destruction of conditions that allowed middle-class life in Europe to be tranquil, which was one of the crucial distinctions between life here and in the Third World. Why are they subjecting not just us, but themselves to this insanity?
"They're Marxist...They hate conservatives ...because 'conservatives' are skeptical of utopias, wary of unintended consequences, and unafraid to call things by their proper names."
Well put!
In that vein, this recently published article might help make sense of it, although here the "neocons" are being discussed rather than their mirror images on the other side of the fulcrum.
https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/perspectives-crooke-jatras
eta: for clarity, the author of this item is not on the left.
Good analysis. Up until seven years ago, I knew nothing about Marxism. But my then high achieving high schooler was all in on Marxism. He was aghast I didn't know the names of Marcuse or Hegel. Well, I do now. During readings at mass, I can pick up bits and pieces that Marx lifted and twisted. Of course, he didn't plagiarize the concept of forgiveness and grace. He kept the sin part, and got rid of the rest. As bad as we have suffered, the export of Marxist ideology led to the death of millions in the Soviet Union, Mao was inspired by Lenin murdering even more and Pol Pot's murderous rampage came after being radicalized in France.
"Supra national institutions governed by a global elite" a/k/a a worldwide totalitarian state with slavery as its centerpiece.
Yes.
A technocratic neo-feudal biosecurity surveillance state.
But ze bugz vill be yummy!
This is pretty much word for word what Danish politicians tell their electorate.
Lawfare and judicial coups must be stopped. Who would bet against the polish NGO receiving funding from America or Soros? Send these “asylum seekers” straight to their homes for cultural enrichment.
anything is possible, perhaps the German government funds it. nobody really knows about the financing of Pro Asyl, which is a really vile organisation and often involved in this kind of chicanery. in an ideal world they would be investigated by prosecutors.
I suspect the voters will know that only one party in Germany will try their very hardest to change all this. We have just one party in the UK which is also working towards the day they have a Parliamentary majority to do similar things.
Something has gone very wrong re “judges” in the western world. It wasn’t meant to be this way. Need to take a hard look at exactly what power various judges have, and how to correct mistakes and over-reach in a timely manner - and that includes removal, and statutory limits on jurisdiction, forced recusal, and removal from the bench - without a convoluted impeachment process.
In Europe, if you want to advance your career as a judge you aim for a position in Brussels. This gives you the incentive to use your current position to optimize your chances to slide into one of those posts.
"After their second push-back, they came into contact with a Polish NGO, which put them up in a hotel and bought them new clothes and mobile phones. They waited until two days after Dobrindt suspended Dublin and then they tried to cross into Germany again, this time via the strictly patrolled train route, which all but guaranteed an interception by German police"
NGO's are enemy combatants. No, that isn't hyperbole.
GOs are, too
there's no real difference.
Agreed.
But when I said GOs I meant more like the IRS.
This whole asylum racket needs to be investigated and destroyed. It's just modern day trading in human flesh
I disagree, this does set a precedent (although I do understand your context), because it blurs expectations and reality between the law. In other words, if the expectation of the public is that this is legal, then indeed, it is reality.
We have seen this over and over again in the US (like with vaccine mandates). By the time it reaches SCOTUS the damage is already done, despite our SCOTUS having a "conservative" majority. Because of this the public just assumes its legal. And by the time the judiciary actually makes a ruling you then see protestations from the Left like amoeba's squirming under a microscope slide.
So, in effect, Left leaning staes just ignore the ruling and the constitution itself (for example, see sanctuary states). In fact, we even have judges breaking the law in their own courtrooms (physically hiding or escorting an illegal out of the courthouse) in order to prevent ICE from arresting the illegal because they THINK they are entitled to make that decision themselves. And they can get away with it because there are no consequences given the entire judiciary in that state has the same ideology and believe they are both upholding the law and their "moral" duty.
Worst of all is that this faux-precedent then allows further behavior/rulings, in a progressive (pun intended) feedback loop, that allows a never ending adjacents of adjacent rulings/behavior to be codified (and expected) de facto as law.
I have found that the law is what a judge decrees, not what the law says.
Exactly. And just as Tacitus said 2,000 years ago:
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
anarcho-tyranny staring us in the face.
Here's a funny tangent from over here:
A businessman sued the Office of Taxation (our IRS, basically) a couple of years ago, and won. Reason was that due to poor communication from the OoT he had paid 125% taxes for one year, and wanted the money back. But despite the court finding in his favour on all points (that the OoT tried to declare all their documentation pertaining the case "classified" didn't help them) the OoT has refused to pay back the money.
So now, aided by the lawfirm he has contracted, he's handed the claim over to. . .
. . .The King's Office of Repossessions. Who has sent them the official letter where they demand access to files to do a full audit of assets and properties.
Which the OoT is refusing, which in a normal case would lead to the King's Sheriff showing up with police and movers to start taking possession of property.
All in all, the system is fighting itself and it is a delight to behold.
> We have seen this over and over again in the US (like with vaccine mandates). By the time it reaches SCOTUS the damage is already done, despite our SCOTUS having a "conservative" majority. Because of this the public just assumes its legal.
I don't know how much the general American public recognizes this, but let me share my data point.
The day that the Biden administration announced the (transparently illegal, overturned by the courts like two days later) vaccine mandate, he announced it at 6pm (ish; I think).
That same day, at 10 am, my employer, a major corporation almost everyone in America has used, and many have likely paid for at some point, announced their own corporate vaccine policy. Prior to this moment, my employer had been pretty open, internally, about not wanting to mandate that. A combination of "what's the point, you're all working from home anyway" and "we'd rather not rock the boat, if we stake any position on this, it'll piss employees off".
After _six months_ of "hey when are you going to mandate vaccines to all my dirty, unvaccinated coworkers?" => [question evasion], my employer announced an internal vaccine policy, that almost exactly matched Biden's. 8 hours before Biden announced the policy. What a coincidence! It's almost as the CEO was psychic!
I'm 100% convinced that what happened here is something like the following:
1) Biden admin decides they're going to do a vaccine mandate
2) Biden admin quietly reaches out to major private employers and tells them the specifics
3) "You better prepare to roll this out, because we're announcing this policy change on XYZ date and you're going to get fined into bankruptcy if you don't do it"
4) Every employer starts preparing to implement these policies, out of fear of consequences
5) Every employer announces policies virtually identical to the Biden admin policy, _before_ Biden announces
6) Biden announces policy
7) Courts immediately overturn policy
8) But the companies already did it, they spent weeks preparing to do it, they're now locked in to pandering to the covidiots they employ, they won't eat the organizational cost of completely reversing a controversial policy without the appearance of being forced to, as a way to deflect blame.
9) And since the companies "totally voluntarily, all on their own, came up with their own private, internal covid policies, which they are totally allowed to do because they're private employers", it doesn't even matter if Biden's policy is illegal, because formally, the government had nothing to do with these companies' policies
Superb breakdown. I've often wondered about this, because it enraged me. It's like an exploit, hacking big HR departments' lack of agility.
Small comfort I guess but it's even worse in Britain.
'Contrary to the party political pycho-drama endlessly fed to European publics, real political agency right across Western Europe – whichever political party is supposedly ‘in power’ – is massively and disproportionately in the hands of a huge high-caste of lefty lawyers. In the mental universe they inhabit, being all ‘social justicey’ and cleverly subverting the seemingly atavistic concerns of rightist politicians (and the non-graduates who vote for them) is viewed as a rather fun (and highly lucrative) intellectual chess game. When you – as a rich lawyer - are personally insulated from the adverse consequences of those social justicey ‘causes’ you champion, it may indeed seem all very professionally satisfying. And this lawfare game now goes on not just within governmental and judicial circles but pretty much everywhere else too.'
https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/news-from-nowhere-revisited
Germans, normal ones, must be unbelievably patient people. Their country is rapidly being brought to ruin by foreigners and the children who make up the left in pretty much every country. Another day, another reason why revolutions happen.
“If you want to know how you are governed, this is it: you are governed by manipulating procedural outcomes. It’s perfect. It belongs on someone’s tomb.”
They will soon be putting up statues over by you of our American Judge Boasberg as patron saint of the Cult of the Justices Who Thwart.
Oh well. I remember when there was this remarkably effective organization called "Interpol" that tracked down international money launderers like nobody's business. I used to get all swoony over the movies detailing their relentless precision. Turning off them spigots is the only action that can save Germany now.
Legal systems presume that judges are not bald-faced liars.
They fail when judges are bald-faced liars. Which is quite often.
Do you not think it possible, that Merz knew all this, and when it fell apart (as he already knew it would) he can shrug his shoulder's and say , 'Well we tried. Those pesky unelected judges eh?'
Well, he and Dobrindt have a good excuse right now to reimpose Dublin. "The court said it's illegal" and so. They're actually not doing that, they're persisting.
All I wanna know is: how do Somalis end up in Poland? After all, a quick look at a world map shows where Somalia and Poland are - and which countries are in between ... Ah well, that's what happens when geography is no longer taught in school, innit like ...
They might be in Germany now but I bet they end up in the UK!
I'm not taking that bet!
“the rule of obscure crazy people in robes for whom nobody ever voted and who enjoy lifetime appointments.”
We have at least three such people in the UK:
Mr Starmer KC (Prime Minister, former Director of Prosecution)
Lord Hermer KC (Attorney General, appointed by Mr Starmer)
Mr Philippe Sands KC (Mauritius’ chief legal adviser on Chagos)
'KC' means a higher form of lawyer / barrister.
All three practiced in the same company.
All three know of each other socially.
The eugyppius quote applies to all three.
Apparently, in Germany, money just falls from the sky. Can I have a new cell phone, please?
You can replace Germany with any other EU-province save Hungary, Romania and Poland and use the same text.
I understand why you use the terms "asylees" and "asylum seekers"; it's the ones used - wrongly - by media and politicians for three decades now.
The correct word would of course be intruders.
Possibly invaders. Definitiely criminals.
If we are to survive, migration policy needs to be summed up as either of the following phrases; the more humane "No. Out." or (my preference) "Fix bayonets".
"Immivaders"
Who exactly coordinates all this foolishness? It all sounds so similar to what is happening in the USA.
Well this article is more about transgenderism/transhumanism, but I am pretty sure we are talking about a number of the same players and intertwined philosophies, especially since the timelines dovetail pretty well.
How A Handful Of Billionaires Created The Transgender "Movement"
https://jbilek.substack.com/p/how-a-handful-of-billionaires-created
A confluence of major corporate interests and wild 'insider dealers' like Soros.
Every one of them - Gates to Zuckerberg - draw out far more cash than they ever 'donate' to charity. They are the ultimate economic tourists.