[…] Ron Unz nos llama la atención sobre la importante voz de un periodista holandés distinguido, Karel…. Wolferen y el mismo Unz son contrapesos importantes al que Unz considera, correctamente en mi opinión, como “la corrupción absoluta y la falta de fiabilidad de los principales medios de comunicación norteamericanos”. […]

[…] Ron Unz ens crida l’atenció sobre la important veu d’un distingit periodista holandès, Kar…. Wolferen i el mateix Unz són contrapesos importants al que Unz considera, correctament al meu entendre, com “la corrupció absoluta i la manca de fiabilitat dels principals mitjans de comunicació nord-americans”. […]

No, normal meaning, that is a “British national”, or even more simply having a British passport. Anatoly lived in the UK from 6 to 18 (from his words), so you would expect he’s become a British national with full rights, though I had my doubts in this respect, that he might be a true Russian patriot and he merely had had a permanent residence permit for those 12 years, thus my question. Also he lived 10 years in the US, so he could also have become a US national, but for me it seems less probable, he might have had just a green card only. Or maybe not and he has triple citizenship. But we’ll never know, Anatoly is too sensitive and secretive on that matter. You know, Russian “patriots” are not allowed to say such things lest they are busted.

(Пишу по-русски, ибо итак оффтоп.)

Возможно, был не в очень настроении и излишне резко отреагировал, но надоело же такая манера дискуссии.
Мне же искренне было интересно, голосовал ли ты за Брексит, приложил ли, так сказать, руку, а не просто тут отстранённо рассуждаешь как чужак без права голоса* (типа меня). А оно вот как повернулось, на простейший вопрос о гражданстве, на который ответят 99,99% людей безо всякого стыда и задней мысли, начал юлить. Что личного я спросил, что надо играть в эти угадайки? К чему это, тебе нельзя задать простой вопрос и получить простой ответ, вечно строишь из себя какого-то мистера Икс. Хотя сам же особо ничего не скрываешь, говоришь от своего настоящего имени, постишь свои личные фото, сам рассказываешь детали своей биографии вплоть до ДНК, любимого кетчупа, и в каком районе Москвы живёшь (адреса и т/ф не хватало, хехе), никогда не скрываешь свои политические пристрастия, а на вопрос о гражданстве тебя сразу заклинило. Агент “Натан” никогда не был так близко к провалу. Единственный вывод могу сделать, что это комплексы какие-то на это счёт. Ну бывает так у патриотов, сначала очень любят Россию, а потом у них внезапно пять гражданств и ВНЖ, включая гражданства стран агрессивного блока НАТО, что прям перед людьми неудобно как-то. Ну в принципе мне это давно было понятно, просто ещё лишний раз подтвердилось. Скорее, действительно, больше ничего не буду личного спрашивать, ты всё равно ничего не ответишь, да всё итак ясно. Моя ошибка, правда, была, что я думал, что ты очередной компенсирующий “русский националист Рабинович” типа Шамира или Сэйкера, удобно любящий Россию из прекрасного далёка, но вроде нет, и то хорошо. 1/4 кебаба таки простим тебе.

* Кстати, можно бы и дальше спросить, был бы интересный у тебя набор: Брексит+консерваторы+Трамп+ГОП+Путин+ЕР. Но решим, что тебя, как некоторые категории граждан, лишили голоса в трёх странах.

You mean a CUKC?

The Brits gained nothing by using the fiction of “citizenship” to hide their being subjects of HM the Queen.

You see, I asked you two very simple basic questions, concerning your personal relations with the topic (Brexit), and you could have answered very simply yes/no – end of discussion or further discussion on the topic (Brexit, not you). Yet, you’ve created another fog of uncertainty, which make me suspect again that there is something wrong with you, your background, your double loyalty, and what not. Nothing unusual with dual citizenship, but your strange reaction make others believe there IS really something wrong. No questions to you anymore. Tired of this site.

Millions died in the Bengal famine of 1943, and Churchill’s reputation hardly suffered at all: he won.

The late 17th century was a difficult period for Scotland. The country’s economy was relatively small, its range of exports very limited and it was in a weak position in relation to England, its powerful neighbour (with which it was in personal union, but not yet in political union). In an era of economic rivalry in Europe, Scotland was incapable of protecting itself from the effects of English competition and legislation.[2] The kingdom had no reciprocal export trade and its once thriving industries such as shipbuilding were in deep decline; goods that were in demand had to be bought from England for sterling. [...] As the Scottish Darien Company was backed by 25–50% of all the money circulating in Scotland, its failure left the entire Lowlands almost completely ruined. Some Scottish nobility petitioned Westminster to wipe out the Scottish national debt and stabilise the currency. Although the first request was not met, the second was and the Scottish shilling was given the fixed value of an English penny. Personal Scottish financial interests were also involved. Scottish commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien project and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses. The 1707 Acts of Union,[21] Article 15, granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt..

Have Unionists agreed to be responsible for backstopping an independent Scotland’s financial system ? If not we would go back to the historical position of Scotland as the poorest country in Europe, and with the death penalty for mastrubation.

So you are a UK citizen. Then did you vote for or against Brexit?

P.S. Why are you editing others’s comments instead of answering in a normal way?

AK: On those occasions when I want to signal that I am not going to engage in an extended discussion on the topic.

The UK and Canada have QEII as Head of State, but DO NOT have common citizenship. The difference would be that Scotland and the UK would be contiguous Kingdoms the citizens of which would share a common citizenship. This is accepted by both the SNP and Unionist Parties as what would happen if Scotland became independent. There would be a Re-set to conditions immediately prior to 1707.
If you can’t grasp this, I suggest you get back in your U-boat and pester us no more. And take Jon Bon Giovi while you’re at it.

“I don’t think the Donald cares much about starvation.”

He probably doesn’t, but if it comes to a major disaster (like a few hundred thousand being starved to death) in Yemen due to Saudi-Arabia’s war and US/UK support for it, it will look very bad for anybody associated with him. There’s already a significant risk imo anyway that Trump’s behaviour and policies will actually harm nationalists in Europe and damage their prospects.
As for Britain playing auxiliary in America’s Mideast expeditions (what’s next? Iran?), that’s sheer lunacy in my opinion, but then Britain’s evil and demented elites probably need those neo-imperialist projects to feel important and to line their own pockets.

There’s no way of knowing what someone like Farage thinks in private as what people are allowed to say by the BBC watchdog is so constrained.

Personally i’m fine with him; the people i distrust are the UK version of GOPe who want a NAFTA version of the EU.

The transnational elite (whether EU or NAFTA-EU) have most of the power so the Brexit rebellion was never likely to succeed on its own. The big prize was influencing America and possibly France creating a domino effect.

One or both Parties would be able to make the England – Scotland Border a “hard” one as you put it. As sovereign parliaments, it would be in their rights to do so.
Secondly, if Scotland had seceded from the UK, which was then in the EU, Scotland would not gain automatic membership. It is clear from the Lisbon Treaty and previous treaties that Scotland would have to apply for membership after secession. This would be vetoed by Spain, Italy and other EU states that would not want a precedent set.
Thirdly, some years from now, Scotland will be out of the EU in actuality.
The ” Independence in Europe ” policy devised by the SNP has never stood up to objective scrutiny. It was a marketing ploy to gull the gullible. You seem to be one of them.

I expect Britain will blunder on much as it did before. Britain never was going to become a big manufacturing nation inside the EU, and it won’t become one outside. Britain is still an island and still has the rebellious working class that it always did, and it still has to sell lots of arms in the Middle East to keep what manufacturing it has. The first industrial conflicts were in Britain. Brexit was an irruption of the anti intellectual British workers (what was once the basis of union power) and their families who saw that the EU model was leading to mass importation of workers for everything that could not be outsourced. It will slow down the process in immigrant workers holding down jobs, but not halt it.

For example the construction boom in London would lead to good wages for experienced British workers, one might think. Not a bit of it, the government had to ban overseas recruitment of workers for British jobs that had not been advertised for in Britain at all. Makes little difference, the construction jobs in London are going almost entirely to Romanians ect recruited en mass from their own country. And they claim welfare at British rates for their children back home, the ones that are not clogging up out schools hospitals and housing market. Our leaders say we still need them.

There has been fighting in Yemen since before you were born

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357826/How-rag-tag-team-SAS-veterans-changed-history-secret-war-Britain-STILL-wont-admit.html

Massacring Yemenis pays off big time for Britain, because the Saudis placed huge contracts with Britain. I don’t think the Donald cares much about starvation. He openly advocated killing the families of terrorists and he went on to become the pres by the people’s will . They knew what kind of man he was when they elected him. So what if famine saves the US taxpayer cost of a Hellfire missile from a drone? The Germans and Obama won’t like it, but Britain is not going to be fighting on the US’s not Germany’s side in a future war (there will be more–rely on it) and Obama threatened post-Brexit Britain with going to the back of the line for US help.

Trump needed our Brexit to win and we needed him too.

I see you really do prefer even Jews to Slavs.

That shows your nationalism to be a typical product of an immigrant who doesn’t feel at home in America and then grabs to a hastily constructed nationalistic identity of the native land, an identity that doesn’t really match the one of the actual natives.

Knew a few Indians who were like that, but they had at least the orthodoxy of rituals to fall back on.

I’m afraid it would be not just a case of separate bedrooms but of ceasing to have sex at all. Now, in contrast with 1707, there are several countries which have Elizabeth II as head of state but are recognised and conceive themselves as fully independent. That would be the template for Scotland.

“We are going to share America’s fate for good or ill now.”

Trump is probably going to f**k up big time soon and might well be remembered eventually as the guy who helped the Saudis bring starvation to Yemen. Good luck tying your fortunes to the US.

Seems to me like that as well. That’s why I have little respect for someone like Farage. A true English nationalist like Enoch Powell at least realized that US influence and the EU were both detrimental to British sovereignty. Farage and his ilk are delusional with their whole Anglosphere crap and at least in their public pronouncements seem to have no problem with mass immigration of non-Europeans. Pretty pathetic imo.

If Alien X had a visa for England and not for Scotland, he could be stopped at the border if he tried to enter Scotland and sent back.

As you perhaps know I was talking about the far more pertinent situation of someone getting a visa for Scotland and then going there and crossing into England without having a valid visa for England. How could he be stopped at the England-Scotland border if their wasn’t a hard one?

Scotland as a member of the EU would have to take unlimited EU migration and obey EU directives on asylum seekers. The people running government , law and business in Scotland would secretly welcome that situation, because they would be able to plead EU directives as an excuse for the displacement of the natives.

You misrepresent what I wrote. Citizens of both Kingdoms will share a common citizenship and be able to move unhindered. Aliens, resident or otherwise, would be subject to the laws of whichever Kingdom they were in. If Alien X had a visa for England and not for Scotland, he could be stopped at the border if he tried to enter Scotland and sent back.
As anyone who has studied the history of the EU, the more active borders there are, the better for the natives. Open Borders mean Massive Migration. The way things are going, maybe Pres Trump may need to build a Canada Wall as well.

There has been a lot of wishful thinking in British liberal circles that some way would be found to circumvent Brexit. But calls for “the elites” to “rise up against the ignorant masses” were never realistic*, for all the childish tantrums on social media and the MSM. The Conservative Party has no good reason to torpedo itself by going against the democratically expressed wishes of its core electorate, the Middle Englanders who overwhelmingly voted Leave, and so the button was pushed as soon as all the judicial delaying procedures were exhausted.

The Brexiteers who get to give their opinions in the media are untypical in their motives and completely disconnected from what motivated the people who gave them a win. The Brexiteers and the Remainians are as one on EU immigrants– they like em: “Hard working” is the mantra.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/14/eu-immigration-control-labour-supporters-voters-party

The Labour party finds itself in the very dangerous position of having only 4% of its MPs supporting leave but, in one opinion poll, 44% of its members doing so. [...] People who already have wealth, own a home of their own and have a secure job may not worry about immigration, but Labour’s heartland supporters do worry about it. If present trends continue, two-thirds of the projected increase in population over the next 25 years is expected to come from immigration. Ten to 16 million extra people will move to Britain,

The Brexit is not going to be allowed to give British workers more bargaining power (or jobs), and the Brexiteers who can articulate are not against immigration, this won’t change.

We are going to share America’s fate for good or ill now.

Welcome aboard cuz! Get a tight grip on the handrails.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/14/eu-immigration-control-labour-supporters-voters-party

The citizens of both Kingdoms would share a common citizenship and be able to move freely, settle and work in both Kingdoms. This was the position between 1603 and 1707 before full political union.

You are obviously not worried about the fate of Scots as East Europeans flood into our country and keep wages low . But the English take that kind of thing more seriously (the Brexit surprise was almost entirely due to Field and others warning being ignored).

The big parties understand now that the
English will think it is a problem that EU citizens could go to Scotland and then enter England. If Scotland leaves the UK , the English are not going to hand over control of who enters to England to the government of Scotland, so the English will put up a hard border against EU immigrants using Scotland as a back door to England.

Re Scottish Independence
Like most non-Scots, Mr Karlin’s understanding of the matter is defective. The SNP won its first seat in the UK Parliament as long ago as February 1945, during the Second World War, when Unionists persist in claiming that the British peoples were never more united. They weren’t.
Since then, the SNP’s growth has generally been consistent and steady, until the torrent of the last 12 years. They are not going to fade away, especially as the Unionists at Westminster have been so helpful in aiding their cause.
Secondly, the political union between Scotland and the rest of the UK is highly unusual inasmuch as it is the result of 2 sovereign parliaments peacefully ( uniquely so ) agreeing to unite their countries under 1 parliament. However, implicit in the Treaty and Acts of Union are articles which would justify secession in certain conditions. Now that there is a separate ( if subordinate ) Scottish Parliament again, secession is necessarily easier.
A vote for “Independence” paradoxically isn’t and most intelligent Scots would tell you so. That is because the Re-set is not Scotland 1300, but Scotland immediately before the 1707 Act of Union.
The Head of State of the Kingdom of Scotland would be HM QEII, the Head of State of the United Kingdom of England, Wales and NI. The citizens of both Kingdoms would share a common citizenship and be able to move freely, settle and work in both Kingdoms. This was the position between 1603 and 1707 before full political union. There is little support for Republicanism in Scotland, and the vast majority of Scots want a sensible working relationship with the rest of the UK.
Most Scots would agree that the UK Parliament has mismanaged Scottish Affairs for many years, even before WWII. Hence, the desire for the return of a Sovereign Scottish Parliament.
This is likely in 10 to 15 years maximum IMHO. It should be viewed, not as a divorce, but as the parties agreeing to sleep in separate bedrooms to maintain domestic harmony.

That Scottish social mobility was always a bit of a myth. The average Scot was better going to America.

For Scotland it always strikes me how absurdly left can be a party which calls itself “National”. The only national, genuinely Scottish I’d say, is their hatred for London and the English. Hence the longing for independence.

Yes the SNP are as pro immigrant as New Labour. There would have to be a hard border if Scotland left the UK, otherwise it would be an open door for anyone going to England. I love how the SNP have sabotaged themselves with their A Man’s A Man For A’ That immigrant-mania.

One of the things Empire provided to the Scots was economic opportunities. Scots were disproportionately represented in the Indian Civil Service, in the Army, etc. , and several made great wealth in the colonies. What has Little England to provide them now? Little England can barely maintain it’s own standards.

The Scottish political class are goodwhites, to a man and woman.

One of the SNP’s complaints is that London is stopping them taking more refugees.

They are also unanimously pro-EU – not a single significant voice against. It was a surprise that, nonetheless, 38% of Scots voted Leave.

I am in Scotland .

Obviously the Scots are not very happy about Brexit, having voted against it 3-to-2, but it is still not something they want to break the Union over. The most likely avenue by which support of independence could grow is if the UK were to experience severe economic hardship as Brexit gets underway, but as I noted above, that is unlikely to happen

The Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigned on “independence in Europe” (EU), but what was the central unspoken assuption was the rest of the UK staying in the EU and Scotland getting something like Irelands deal.

The SNP now assume that everyone that voted for independence in the Scottish independence referendum and has voted for them since was also also wanting to stay in the European Union.But about 30% of their voters are in favour of coming out of the EU and the UK , so the the SNP couldn’t count on them now. If they left the UK and remained or rejoined the EU, that would be completely different proposition from anything the SNP have envisioned and the the most important thing of all is thanks to the frackers the oil (Scotland’s is very high cost) money is next to nothing now.

Brexit was good for Trump and Trump winning was good for Brexit Britain. Britain could never go against America (the EU was an American project that the US pushed on Britain) . We are going to share America’s fate for good or ill now.

They could apply, but in neither case are the EUros rolling out the red carpet for them.

A rise of secessionist movements will be devastating for Globalism.

Not if, as Scotland plans to do, they just turn around right after independence and join the EU. Same with the Catalans.

Have read the triggered tweets above. Bitterly felt anti-white racism.

Scotland (along with NI) is the whitest part of the UK. Where would it have a better chance to remain so, within the UK or within the EU?

Anatoly, are you a UK citizen?

AK: Maybe, maybe not. Let’s just say I feel a certain grudging kinship with Kolomoysky.

The EU encourages secessionist forces in the constituent nations, Brexit will forever bury Scottish independence and the smarter SNP types know this.

Two sides to Brexit

1) Little Englanders who want to sit on their island minding their own business and not be in any transnational bloc (majority)

2) Atlanticist globalists who want UK to be part of a future NAFTA version of EU rather than the EU (minority except at the top).

We shall see.

5371:

I had a Scottish relative who maintained that the only reason the Scots remained in Great Britain was that they had their noses up the Queen’s posterior. (His actual words were a little saltier!)

Scotland is sharply divided between the old for union and the rest for independence, so it will depend on who is more riled up on voting day.

Yes, its all too with angry white people worried about immigration, nothing to do with globalisation, economic problems etc.

One with that’s been rarely mentioned over the past 12 months is trade inbalances. Just before Brexit, Britain had a record trade deficit with Europe. Just before Trump’s election, the US also had a record trade deficit, and now France is experiencing a record trade deficit. Hopefully this works out in Le Pen’s favour.

In contrast, Holland has a healthy trade surplus, which is probably one of the reasons why Wilder’s didn’t do that well.

we want Scottish Independence. A rise of secessionist movements will be devastating for Globalism.

The Scottish independence issue is going to fade away.

The strong horse principle applies.

It was no accident that the rise of the SNP coincided with the UK’s accession to the EEC, and once Britishness is asserted more stongly the idea of Scottish independence will lose its appeal.

The Remoaners are mightily triggered:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/candlelit-vigils-wearing-black-crying-remainers-spending-article/

This is the best entertainment we’ve had since … er Trump’s last twitter session.

[…] : Karel van Wolferen, Unz.com, 14 aout […]

Putin is to sell S-400 to “Ourguy”.

https://lenta.ru/news/2017/03/15/s400/

Hey TheJester,

In the name of diversity, it is irrational and suicidal to import hostile populations that seek your cultural, political, and religious demise.

Correct. The problem is, you see hostility everywhere. The West’s cultural, political and religious demise is going quite handsomely at the hands of Westerners – we did not make porn nor gay-pride parades ubiquitous in the West. The reason people are pissing in their pants about us in the first place – even though we are a small minority – is because we are serious about our faith. I don’t support Muslims violently taking over the West, I simply don’t see a problem with them working, worshiping, having families and going about their business. If you find that threatening – that’s your problem, not ours. If you had civilizational confidence, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If there are Muslims who are acting like thugs, by all means, kick them out. And I totally understand the push to stop any more from coming in.

Peace.

Hey iffen,

Of course, you can see it in the architecture – all of that is fine. As I said, there are some details we can adjust and some principles that we simply cannot compromise on. The religion means ‘submission’ for a reason; we will not break our principles for anyone. Neither did the first generation care whether they were up to snuff in the eyes of the Sassanid civilization. Does that mean we must necessarily be at logger heads with everything in Greco-Roman civilization? Of course not – a lot of Hellenistic ideas (that were compatible) were absorbed centuries ago by Muslim scholars and scientists.

Peace.

Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse – he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.

Your reply is an admission that Muslims will never successfully integrate into Western society. Their religion forbids it. This is why Islam is a threat to Western Civilization.

As demonstrated in contemporary Europe … Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands … Muslim immigrants are more dangerous to Western society than Communist conspirators and should be banned accordingly. In the name of diversity, it is irrational and suicidal to import hostile populations that seek your cultural, political, and religious demise.

Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization

Because you are living in the literal descendant civilization, both genetically and culturally.

Hey TheJester,

Like I said, that is fine – define them as theocracies as you wish. To a Muslim who has studied his tradition, the analogy is incorrect. The West doesn’t really have a parallel framework in its history so it wants to try to define things through its eyes. Again totally fine, don’t expect us to play along.

You must be basing your judgement

On studying the Shariah for years and its principles and Islamic history. The nation-state model may or may not be the best framework for setting up a Muslim society (it was adopted from external sources, it was not an organic, internal growth) – the jury is still out on that. An Islamic framework is extremely flexible, historically and currently it has helped define the parameters of anything from military dictatorships, tribal confederations, monarchies, and even parliamentary democracies. One size does not fit all.

Islam is not compatible with democracy

If you have studied the matter with traditional scholars then you’ll know it is compatible enough. Right now there is a sea shift, the increased Islamic political changes reflect the voice of the people – read the polls, Muslim people increasingly want Islam. If you think that is not true, you have only been paying attention to the secular urban elites when they put out their rallies in places like downtown Tehran, and ignoring the many more voices in places like Mashhad.

In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams.

This only regards a genrally small subset of laws for society. Islamic scholars are not involved in the legal decisions as to what the penalty for running a red light are or build construction codes. The vast majority of human interaction and needs in and outside the Muslim world is secular – period.

the Ummah

The unified Ummah is an ideal and one unrealized since the Abbassid’s political power splintered. Men whose hearts are mired in this world will always fight over it no matter which religion they profress, it is the nature of the material world to fracture; wealth, land, age, genetic differences, etc. As long as the hearts are unified in the mosques (which are not considered part of the domain of the earthly sovereigns) across the world – that is good enough.

and never integrate into Western society

Define parameters of integration first. Whole hog? No.

There are some things that are flexible (in these, there are no problems to adjust or update) and some things that are not – we will not water down the principles that are unalterable to make people happy. Why would you think we care to be judged by the yardstick of Greco-Roman civilization (as impressive as it was)? The Prophet (pbuh) was not the paragon of Machiavellian political discourse – he was the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.

Peace.

No theocracies in Islam? Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, or Kuwait? Theocracies by any credible definition of the word.

You must be basing your judgement on Egypt, Syria, and Iraq during the short-lived secular Baathist dictatorships. (Only Bashar al-Assad in Syria is left from that movement.)

In any case, Islam is not compatible with democracy or any the other Greco-Roman cultural or political peccadillos that define Western Civilization. In Islam, laws are derived from the Quran and the Hadith as interpreted by councils of imams. Councils of imams then provide legitimacy to secular strongmen who seize political power and have shown their respect for the religious councils and Sharia law (ref. Saudi Arabia). That’s God’s plan for humankind as communicated through Muhammed PEUH … creating and sustaining the City of God on earth for all times. Indeed, the defining characteristic of Islam is for all peoples to live in a global Islamic theocracy — the Ummah.

Firmly anchored in the 7th Century, nothing will ever change in the expanding Islamic City of God, including the Sharia-based politics and cultures of the growing Islamic diasporas in Europe, Russia, and the United States; that is, they will always be Islamic theocracies and never integrate into Western society or Western political systems.

“Maybe Germany could swap, secular Turks for the religious ones.”

Yes, I thought of that as well
Interesting times indeed…though I’d prefer reading about them to living in them.

Hey iffen,

I doubt my level of advice translates to the ‘American pressure’ that GR was referring to. Us offering advice is fine and dandy – that’s what diplomats are for. Interfering in the affairs of foreign states through strong arm tactics, not very nice.

Peace.

Hey GR,

You are correct – that was the secular state controlling religion – not a pretty sight. Neither did I support intimidation or violence by the secularists, nor do I support it from the other side.

Keep in mind, the opposition attempted a military coup – not very clean.

In any case Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian rule will probably lead to a non-trivial number of Turks actually fleeing the country.

Good point. Maybe Germany could swap, secular Turks for the religious ones. I don’t know which way things will flow, I hope the transition to being more religious is done upholding principles (which religion is incidentally supposed to instill). We live in interesting times.

Peace.

But you still want to advise on how Germany and Turkey should relate.

As a citizen I’d like us to mind our own business

Hey iffen,

Yeah – we are a major third wheel in waaaay too many international relationships. As a citizen I’d like us to mind our own business, whether in South America, ME, Pacific, etc.

Peace.

so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly

Hey, wait a minute. You are a citizen and you want to get rid of the “third wheel’?

I’m not sure it’s correct to state that religion had been “driven underground” in Turkey…more like religion has been controlled by the state (I mean, would a truly secular state have something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Religious_Affairs , which also, it seems to me, always implied an affirmation of Sunni supremacy within Turkey?). And I think your view of the re-Islamicization of Turkish society is a bit too rose-tinted…from what I’ve read and heard, it’s a scary process full of intimidation and violence for more secular-minded Turks. But admittedly I don’t have personal experience of the situation in Turkey.
The current “crisis” between Germany and Turkey escalated partly because Turkey has jailed a Turkish-German journalist, Deniz Yücel, on what seems like trumped up charges. And there hasn’t been a general ban on campaigning by Turkish politicians in Germany yet, only some individual towns have done so (if I’m informed correctly because of “safety concerns”…one may regard this as a pretext of course, but obviously it isn’t in Germany’s interest that Turkey’s political antagonisms lead to violence on German streets; and there already seem to have been plenty of cases in Germany of Erdogan sympathizers actively intimidating and threatening their political opponents).
As for your idea of Turks leaving Germany because Erdogan’s Islamic paradise will be so attractive…that seems rather unlikely if Turkey’s economy gets in serious trouble as seems quite possible. In any case Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian rule will probably lead to a non-trivial number of Turks actually fleeing the country.

Hey Mr. Karlin,

Realistically speaking, though, I think the numbers going back will be tiny regardless.

Sure, but even if you eventually incentivize (financially or otherwise) it’ll make the transition easier and more likely.

Just from a personal viewpoint. I’m a practicing Muslim, my wife wears hijab – we have zero problems transitioning into a society that is already running by Islamic rules. In fact, if an area is too secular, I’d likely not move there. For instance, I know a few families that moved to UAE (for the sake of preserving their religion – they didn’t like hacking it in the West anymore). Now, they did not move to Abu Dhabi or Dubai, but rather Sharjah which is the emirate that enforces ban on alcohol and decency laws (and which is likely the only one where you won’t be propositioned by an Eastern European prostitute any time you board or disembark from an elevator) :

http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/sharjah-s-decency-law-takes-effect-today-1.425632

I’m telling you, people in the West are shooting themselves in the foot if their goals are to try to empty the West of practicing Muslims and simultaneously prevent Muslim countries from becoming more Islamic.

Peace.

Hey GR,

Anyway, you’re certainly right that one shouldn’t burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it.

i like dialogue and thinking things through – it’s rare to get that genuine conversation on the Intranet where ideas are exchanged instead of insults.

But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn’t much of a tradition here.

I’ll admit to this, even Goethe was positive on Islam, but negative on the Turks. But there is a recent history of cooperation which I think shouldn’t be deep-sixed. I would imagine Turkey would have pushed for policies to its advantage, this is where Germany needs to be firm on what it feels is to its own advantage and a mutual give-and-take can be reached. I won’t argue that the net from immigrants has been a loss, though I’ve read Turkish-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands – maybe it is still a net loss. The US has always been dictating to Germany (and kind of occupies it honestly) – so I think a major issue is just getting that third wheel out of the way and negotiating directly.

Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many

Turkey was extremely secular – Muslims who traveled through it reported debauchery that excelled European cities. The religion was driven underground. But it eventually came back because I don’t think the Turks found much meaning in material life. The resurgence wasn’t militant; it was slow and organic, and even suffered many defeats at the hands of the military and government. The only question is, will the resurgence be the old-guard Sunni order (with its respect for Turkey’s Sufi roots) or be tainted by Salafi-Wahhabi extremism?

This isn’t unique to Turkey. You can go around and ask the older generation in many Muslim countries (those born in the 40′s and 50′s) – they’ll tell you that they lived in a time without headscarves, when weddings had wine and dancing, bell-bottoms, the works. Eventually, the fun wore off, enough of the next generation simply doesn’t want that any more. Often, they are fighting with their parents about being allowed to wear a scarf or grow a beard. This is a good read:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/10/10/hypermodern-religiosity-islam/

It’s going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.

That’s rarely a problem. Jordan is less democratic and from what I’ve read Germany and Jordan are increasing ties and economic cooperation. I think what bothers most people is them butting in on your sovereignty. I mean, you could have a friend who runs his marriage completely differently than you and it’s totally fine, it’s when he starts criticizing the way you run yours and insulting your wife that you start getting upset; and rightly so.

But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us

Yeah see, that’s not cool. Now, with respect to details, from what I read, Germany blocked Turkish officials from campaigning among Turkish citizens for the upcoming referendum. Now for sure, Germany has the right to do this, but is this wise? What’s the big deal? So some officials come and campaign for this referendum (as long as it’s peaceful) and if it helps to pass, then guess what – Turkey may become more and more like some of the immigrants want it to be. They may actually want it to be more overtly Islamic and centralized. This would actually ease the transition and give incentive for those elements to go back to Turkey – isn’t that what Germans would like to see happen? I mean, if you do not want devout or Islamic-leaning Turks around you, why get in the way of making Turkey their dreamland?

Peace.

“Who says that’s what I’m talking about?”

The German-Turkish alliance in WW1 is sometimes brought up as evidence for how deep German-Turkish ties are (or at least I think it used to be like that, obviously nowadays not so much given how the Armenian genocide has been given increased attention in recent years). Apart from that rather questionable episode I can’t really think of any deep ties between Germany and Turkey before the immigration of Turks to Germany (which started in the early 1960s…but contrary to what is sometimes claimed it really achieved massive proportions only relatively recently; as late as the early 1980s there were only a few hundred thousand Turks in Germany, not about 3 million like there are now). Some German emigres found asylum in Turkey during the Nazi era. But on the whole Turkish-German ties are rather shallow, there isn’t much of a tradition here.

“Don’t know much about the diaspora angle, but are you seriously going to say Germany didn’t benefit from Turkey as well? ”

In our direct dealings with Turkey I don’t think Germany benefited on the whole. Turkish immigration to Germany was economically a net loss and has created significant problems; and right from the start Turkey pushed for it to advance its own interests ( there was grave concern even in the early 1960s what Turkish immigration could lead to, American pressure and Turkish demands played a significant role in overcoming those objections). Trade may be a different matter…but hey, you can trade with pretty much everyone, without the constant temper tantrums of Erdogan and his ilk.

“I hear this a lot, but i rarely hear anything from most Europeans about Ataturks crude mixture of militant secularism and demented ultra-nationalism. ”

Ataturk was a brutal man, and he set up a deeply flawed system that throughout its existence has been very intolerant towards national minorities and suppressed the desires of a large part of the population. I can also understand to some degree that from your point of view his stance towards religion is unacceptable (though I doubt whether Turkey was ever truly secular…Sunni Islam, controlled by the state, seems to have always been at least a central component of national identity for many). Kemalism probably was untenable in the long term. But I can’t say I like what’s replacing it. It’s going to be at least as undemocratic, and infused with values I abhor.
Anyway, you’re certainly right that one shouldn’t burn any bridges without thinking carefully about it. But the way Erdogan and his ilk seem to enjoy publicly humiliating us (while being themselves hyper-sensitive to alleged slights to their honour) is really too much…it would be nice if some channels of dialogue could be kept open with other elements of Turkish society, but with Erdogan the time for dialogue is well past.

That’s easier said than done, many of those people are citizens of European states. And because of the Nazi past stripping people of citizenship would be especially difficult in Germany (those affected would be seen as the “new Jews”).

Technically, Stalin also had some positive traits.

Now you are just playing to the “he purged the ((()))s crowd.”

Hey – new ‘Native’ American tribal reserve with autonomy – we’ve done this before.
“Buffalo Solja, in the heart of America”,

Whiteclay, Nebraska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whiteclay (Lakota: Makȟásaŋ;[1] “whiteish or yellowish clay”), is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in Sheridan County, Nebraska, United States. The population was 14 at the 2000 census.

A significant part of Whiteclay’s economy is based on alcohol sales to residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, located two miles (3.2 km) north across the border in South Dakota, where alcohol consumption and possession is prohibited. According to the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, beer sales at Whiteclay’s four liquor stores totalled 4.9 million cans in 2010 (~13,000 cans per day) for gross sales of $3 million.[2] The four beer merchants paid federal and state excise taxes (included in liquor’s sale price) of $413,932 that year.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteclay%2C_Nebraska

More babies, more bathwater! Technically, Stalin also had some positive traits.

Peace.

From Wiki:

As a member of the Estates-General, the Constituent Assembly and the Jacobin Club, Robespierre was an outspoken advocate for the poor and for democratic institutions. He campaigned for universal male suffrage in France, price controls on basic food commodities and the abolition of slavery in the French colonies. But although he was an ardent opponent of the death penalty, he played an important role in arranging the execution of King Louis XVI

Damn nihilists.

Hey iffen,

Robespierre wasn’t worried.

Nihilists rarely are.

Beyond Nihilism

The baby is in the bathwater; sorry baby, should have gotten out of there before we chucked it out the window. Daesh operates very much along these lines; destruction of the old order and all traces is the purpose (why do you think they are destroying ancient sites and statues that neither the first generation [ra] nor any subsequent generations thought about despoiling).

If you knew this shouldn’t you have warned the people in Minnesota?

They never asked – though I have to admit, if you are going to plan for a state to be ruled by tribal confederacies and decentralized – Minnesota and Nebraska would probably be on top of my list – Florida and California – not so much.

Hey – new ‘Native’ American tribal reserve with autonomy – we’ve done this before.
“Buffalo Solja, in the heart of America”

Peace.

OMG, what are we going to do without monarchs

Robespierre wasn’t worried.

Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”

If you knew this shouldn’t you have warned the people in Minnesota?

Hey iffen,

You have noticed that this is your inclination, your solution to most problems.

Depends on circumstance actually. If you remember, I’m for Somalis being radically decentralized since it has actually proven better for their people:
“Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

One size does not fit all.

Peace.

And we have to be honest with ourselves – it didn’t have a bad run nor was it spectacularly horrible. It had some great aspects – no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hopefully, we’ll adapt to something else for a while until that doesn’t suit our needs. We have to be flexible in thinking about these things – utopia is a pipe dream. We two…we just happened to open our eyes in a particular snapshot of human history – sooner than you think, we will shut our eyes for good and our inheritors will tackle the same issues we’re discussing – details will differ, but the problems will be the same; greed, indifference, extremism, pride, etc. I pray they’ll figure things out better than we did.

I’m sure some people in Europe were thinking centuries ago; OMG, what are we going to do without monarchs – egads!!! But here we are.

I honestly don’t see a problem with them becoming more centrally run

You have noticed that this is your inclination, your solution to most problems.

but change starts at home.

From Wiki:

The phrase, “all politics is local” is a common phrase in U.S. politics.[1] The former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Tip O’Neill is most closely associated with this phrase.[2]

Hey iffen,

I thought maybe you had one.

Prayer – it’s good for what ails you.

Honestly, there is no clean plan I can think of. That’s why I have never tried – there is benefit in admitting what is beyond oneself. And what works for Turkey does not work for the US – that should be obvious.

Since Turkey is the subject here; I honestly don’t see a problem with them becoming more centrally run. Secular democracy was forced down their throats – all we are seeing is a correction. Hopefully it won’t swing back too far into fascism or an ‘Islamic’ version of the old hard-line Kemalist order (where the military used to sack elected governments – nobody complained then – because, well, they were our sons of b******). I like some things I am seeing and I’m frightened by other things – the things I am frightened by are what I am frightened by in a democracy; lack of transparency, corruption, abuse of power, etc. There are plenty of places in the Muslim world run by monarchs. Some of them are horrible people and some are quite popular and relatively benevolent (Jordan, Malaysia and Morocco come to mind) – for me, the forms don’t matter as much as the results. You can have oppressive democracies and have kingdoms that care more for their citizens.

For my part, last night I (and other Muslims) met with the man running for mayor in our town. Nice Jewish gentleman, he seems to be very concerned about corruption and lack of transparency in our little town. I have no idea what party he belongs to, nor do I care, he has some nice plans for the future that will benefit everyone in our town – we will be putting our support behind him. He surprised us with some questions about details of spiritual/theological understanding (he actually asked about the Sidrat ul-Muntaha) and had studied details of other Far Eastern traditions too – very cool guy.

Chatting about hypothetical situations in Turkey are fine and dandy – but change starts at home.

Peace.

Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

Who says I’m talking about theocracy?

Just sounding you out Talha.

I know it’s failing, I think about it everyday and complain about it in comments here.

I can’t come up with a plan. I thought maybe you had one.

Hey iffen,

Who says I’m talking about theocracy? The Islamic model was never a theocracy as it appeared in the West.

The rulers were secular rulers (often very much so – them Seljuks could drink and party – let me tell ya’). The Muslim scholars were independent or involved in the judicial framework which they tried to guide by religion – no doubt. The secular authorities either were supportive or not, and at times overtly hostile and went after the scholars.

If someone thinks we’ve been running a theocracy, they can explain why some of our top scholars spent time in government jails* or were tortured or killed by the secular authorities; Ummayads, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, etc. all of them took part in the fun. Imam Ghazali (ra) himself had this opinion about involving oneself with the government:
“He realized that the high ethical standards of a virtuous religious life are not compatible with being in the service of sultans, viziers, and caliphs. Benefiting from the riches of the military and political elite implies complicity in their corrupt and oppressive rule and will jeopardize one’s prospect of redemption in the afterlife.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-ghazali/

Imams Nawawi (ra), Subki (ra), Ahmad Zarruq (ra), Izz ibn Abdas-Salam (ra), etc. – it’s like a right of passage – it gets you street cred.

If Western people want to classify it as theocracy (for which, I find the definition: “‘rule of God’ – a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god”), that’s fine – it doesn’t mean much to us since our ‘priests’ haven’t been ruling us and since we’ve never had a compatible word for theocracy in our tradition. Even when Imam Khomenei actually brought forth the concept of something which I would consider close to a theocracy, he called it Vilayat-e-Faqih (Custodianship of the Jurist) – never the ‘Rule of God’ – that would be far too presumptuous.

And I agree, theocracy will fail. Why would anyone (except the juvenile extremists) want Muslim jurists trying to balance the economy or run the navy – the proposition is preposterous.

Peace.

*Note: This is not a joke, all four founders of the surviving Sunni schools, plus Imam Jafar Sadiq (ra) suffered at the hands of the governments.

Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

Theocracy?

Been there, done that, massive fail.

Hey GR,

Helping Turkey butcher Armenians in WW1 or at least turning a blind eye towards it isn’t something I’m proud of.

Who says that’s what I’m talking about?

And as for our post-1945 relations, they were pretty much always a one-way street, with Turkey maximizing the benefits to itself and using diaspora Turks as leverage.

Don’t know much about the diaspora angle, but are you seriously going to say Germany didn’t benefit from Turkey as well? From what I’ve read, Germany is one of its biggest export markets. You’re talking as if Turkey was some welfare queen – like I said, let’s be real about this.

I’m sick of their crude mixture of Islamism and demented ultra-nationalism.

I hear this a lot, but i rarely hear anything from most Europeans about Ataturks crude mixture of militant secularism and demented ultra-nationalism. Most people on these forums seem to think he didn’t go far enough.

But aside from that, friends advise friends – that what diplomacy is supposed to be about. I mean, I guess it’s up to the Germans, but I think they have traditionally had better relations with Turkey and Iran more than most other European countries. I think it’s a shame (from both sides) if that was completely tossed.

But the blatant disrespecting of our sovereignty by that tinpot wannabe-sultan has to stop.

Agreed – that’s not how friends act.

Peace.

“And of course there’s the problem what to do with Turkey’s fifth columnists in Europe if/when things get really ugly.”

Just kick them out, plain and simple – and preferably, begin doing that, little by little, BEFORE things start to get “really ugly”. It should have been done long ago! And don’t worry overmuch about the optics and the unavoidable yowls of protest.

This neo-Ottoman-sultan-wannabe psycho should be spat upon and ostracized by anyone with any decency anywhere in the world – especially in Europe. Instead his regime is still the U.S. and EU’s “NATO ally” and “friend and partner” against Russia and Syria. How pathetic and disgusting!

” I can understand that, but to simply gloss over historical German-Turk relations is silly.”

Helping Turkey butcher Armenians in WW1 or at least turning a blind eye towards it isn’t something I’m proud of.
And as for our post-1945 relations, they were pretty much always a one-way street, with Turkey maximizing the benefits to itself and using diaspora Turks as leverage. Turkey has never been a genuine friend (even to the degree “friendship” is possible between states) and I’m sick of their crude mixture of Islamism and demented ultra-nationalism.
And it’s not like I’m an advocate of ethnic cleansing or the expulsion of all Turks from Germany (not all of whom are Erdogan fans anyway…e.g. he’s obviously quite unpopular in the Alevi community). But the blatant disrespecting of our sovereignty by that tinpot wannabe-sultan has to stop.

Hey GR,

This is hyperbolic. Sure you may not want a lot of Turks directly in Germany – I can understand that, but to simply gloss over historical German-Turk relations is silly. Maybe things are a little too close for comfort with Turks in Berlin holding rallies, but Germany’s historic relationship and cooperation with Turkey shouldn’t simply be thrown away – we have to not be so emotional about these things (that includes Erdogan firing away with the ‘N’ word at anybody who doesn’t agree with him).

Peace.

A few comments…

Erdogan must be a Kubrik fan:

https://www.google.com/search?q=kubrick+stare&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwici8-6rdbSAhVMzVQKHf67Au4Q_AUIBigB&biw=1344&bih=774

the upcoming Turkish referendum on massively expanding his powers as President

Read the details – yes there are expansion of executive powers but also limitations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referendum,_2017

Turkey will essentially become a soft dictatorship

Hey – if it’s being done legally – this is out in the open and being voted on by the public. Could we actually be seeing the first instance of a legal return to a pseudo-monarchy system by the will of the people? Not by a coup and not by an external power installing a puppet. This may be unprecedented.

Liberal Democracy = “End of History”? I think not.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/its-still-not-the-end-of-history-francis-fukuyama/379394/

Peace.

“this serves to accelerate the fissure between Turkey and the EU.”

I hope so, by now it should be clear to anyone that Turkey isn’t a friend or ally. Unfortunately in my own country at least our spineless politicians still feel the need to pretend there’s some deep Turkish-German friendship worth saving (and of course Merkel basically let herself blackmailed by Erdolf). And of course there’s the problem what to do with Turkey’s fifth columnists in Europe if/when things get really ugly.

Re Gulen, Big Brother needs Emmanuel Goldstein. Orwell definitely had some insights.
I doubt whether Erdogan has Russia’s back. It is barely 18 months since a Russian plane was shot down, even if this was later conveniently blamed on Emmanuel Goldstein. It is barely three months since the Russian ambassador to Turkey was killed, in a state where tweeting something disparaging about Erdogan can get you arrested.

How real do you think is the presence of Gulenists?

Many people (even many nationalistic types) think along the “how dumb they are” lines. Some people are afraid about all Hungarian guest-workers being sent back from the UK.

But a lot of nationalistic types see this as yet another slap in the face of the globalists. So many people are actually happy about it. I think Orbán and most of his supporters are at least not totally unhappy about this result.

So I think among non-goodwhites the potential for uncucking line is the dominant.

Stay away from those street demonstrations, AK. We don’t want you to get a knife into the kidney.

Detecting wit is not your strong point.

In normal times I’d dislike the FPÖ…but given the way things have developed over the last few years, I hope Hofer uses his second chance well and wins.
Don’t know if there was intentional voting fraud in the original election (may just have been Austrian inefficiency and messiness)…though nowadays one can’t exclude anything. There have been real cases of voting fraud in Britain (involving postal votes and certain Asian communities…), and irregularities at elections in Germany as well (to the detriment of the right-wing AfD).

How is Brexit going down in Hungary? I can guess goodwhites are horrified by it, but what about most Hungarians? Sorry to lose a putative ally inside the EU, or glad at the potential uncucking?

“The potential “donors”? Why, Turkey and Ukraine, of course? They have been the most enthusiastic EU wannabe members for some time now. ”

Aren’t you overlooking the fact that the UK was a net donor to the recipient EU countries, and that Ukraine definitely and Turkey probably would be additional recipient countries in the EU. So who’s going to pick up the tab that the UK left on the table and the additional tab represented by Ukraine and Turkey?

The Austrian presidential elections will need to be repeated because of “irregularities”… We live in interesting times. I’d be happier if the elites didn’t go mad and there would be no need for all this.

It appears that Thomas Mair’s murder of Jo Cox did not impact on the

I think it did but not enough, maybe a 2% drop in the actual leave vote (and a larger drop in *stated* vote in the polls hence the shock result).

(There was a poll of “are you happy with the result” and IIRC 3% of remain voters were happy.)

That’s the problem, the Scots DON’T want independence. They’re looking fo the biggest teat to suck on.

They feel that distant Brussels will dominate them less than will England. It’s why small eastern European countries also like the EU – better being part of some huge fairly loose organization than being tightly bound to a much larger, more powerful neighbor.

When the UK leaves the EU, the powers transferred to Brussels in 1973 automatically return to Westminster. If the next UK Prime Minister is smart, s/he will immediately pledge to devolve as many of those powers as possible to Scottish control. For instance, allowing Scottish local authorities to issue fishing licences; they could choose to reserve fishing purely for their local fishing communities, or issue licences to outsiders but spend the money raised locally.

The point is to create forms of Scottish self-government which would have to be ceded back to Brussels if Scotland votes to rejoin the EU. An argument for ceding those powers might still be persuasive, but it would be difficult for a Scottish Nationalist politician to make it.

I think it’s inevitable the UK Chancellor will have to cut Corporate Tax, in order to prevent too many foreign firms relocating to EU countries. This is important. Although the SNP presents itself as a Keir Hardy socialist party for cultural reasons, the logic of its arguments is surprisingly Friedmanite / Chicago School when studied in detail. They’ve often argued they could persuade firms to relocate from England to Scotland with the promise of lower corporate taxes and a lower minimum wage. Scots might have to choose between a UK with low corporate taxes and a cheap currency, or an EU fiscally converging on higher taxes and a relatively expensive currency. So again, it’s tricky.