This newspaper article from The Local, considering the rise of the Sweden Democrats echoes in tune with the New York Times when it comes to talking about Republicans. Everyone knows that the Right in America is racist. They're simply crypto-Nazi types just waiting for a Hitler to emerge and give a spanking to those freedom-loving Pink Code ladies. Don't believe me? Ask anyone. Hey, Hillary, got a minute? How about you, Rev. Jackson?
The Swedish population’s support for the far-right Sweden Democrats has gained the crucial mass necessary to enter parliament.
Translation: the yokels have picked up support. Be worried.
According to polls by Demoskop and Expressen newspaper, 4.2 percent of the population would vote for the Swedish Democrats if there was an election today. The Christian Democrats, a partner in the governing coalition, got only 3.8 percent of votes.
Well, maybe things will change before the elections. Maybe the Swedish Democrats will have been chased from the country by then. You can always hope.
In prior polls, only 3.1 percent of the population supported the party. The recent rise in popularity may be due to the party’s annual conference meeting in Karlstad in western Sweden a week ago.
Or it could possibly be due to the reality on the ground. Or a low-pressure system. Whatever… nothing to see here. Move along.
The Sweden Democrats’ chairman Jimmie Åkesson is convinced that the party now has a real chance of entering parliament at the next election.
“If we can keep up this support level of 3 - 4 percent until the next elections, then this is a good starting point. I am sure that we will get into Parliament at the next elections,” he told news agency TT.
Demoskop’s CEO Anders Lindholm confirmed this view. “It isn’t really a surprise. More a case of when, not if. This is a development that has been coming for quite a while,” he told TT.
Ah, no big deal. We’ve seen them coming. Nothing to worry about because, as the Local notes:
However, should the party make it into Parliament in 2010, they might find it a difficult arena in which to air their policies. Most other political parties do not want anything to do with the Sweden Democrats who are viewed as xenophobic and sexist.
Speaking to Expressen newspaper, the Left Party’s Secretary Anki Ahlsten went so far as to describe the Sweden Democrats as outright racists.
And so they are “outright racists” in Sweden. Why, they have the nerve to suggest limiting immigration and demanding more local control. Tch, tch. Barbarians, obviously. Otherwise, they would get quietly in line with the overlords, right?
The polls questioned 1,008 people during the period from April 29th to May 6th.
Support for other parties is as follows:
- - - - - - - - -
The Social Democrats 44.1 percent
The Moderate Party 21.9 percent
The Green Party 6.8 percent
The Liberal Party 6.3 percent
The Centre Party 6.0 percent
The Left Party 5.9 percent
The Christian Democrats 3.8 percent
Go to the main page of The Local, here. Scroll down and notice how conveniently this article about the SD landed between one story about public masturbation and another concerning a serial rapist. This is as subtle as a brick over the head.
Obviously, they do take their cues from the Old Grey Lady’s playbook.
26 comments:
I can't give up on Sweden--some of the best hockey players in the world come from there!
Just look at my Detroit Red Wings!!
The team has many Swedish players.
Stanley Cup anyone!
May I suggest that you're taking 'The Local' far too seriously?
I dont get the sweedes. With all the problems they have with the immigrants, why doesn't Sverigedemokraterne have more than 4.2%. I just don't get it. In Norway we have a party that is very similar to Sverigedemokraterne, called FrP (Fremskrittspartiet), and it has been the second largest party for some time now, currently at 23.4%.
It almost seems that the sweedes are only too happy sending their country down the toilet.
Fremskrittspartiet are a bit different, more liberal, a little less nationalist. Sverigdemokraterna are more inspired by Dansk Folkeparti.
Sweden are more of a consensus society than Denmark and most other European societies. That is the main reason why Swedes vote like they do. For many Swedes who are strongly opposed to immigration, it still seems strange to vote for Sverigedemokraterna. They don't want to "to the wrong thing".
When one of the established parties, Folkpartiet (social liberals) signalled a tougher stance in integration policies, demanding that immigrants learn Swedish, they trebled over a matter of months, from 4,5 to 13 % (in 2002). Thus, there are certainly strong anti-immigration sentiments in the country. People are just too timid to vote for Sverigedemokraterna.
That is slowly changing, though. Let us hope sd make fine elections 2009 (the EU-parliament) and 2010 (local and national parliaments).
It'll be a case of cultural inertia as well. Sweden has been governed by the Social Democrats for nearly the whole of the 20th century, so much that it's become almost unthinkable to vote for anyone else. There's the same attitude around where I live, where people have voted Labour since the party first formed, and voted for the various predecessors of labour in the previous century. They vote for that party because their parents and grandparents voted for that party. That sort of traditional voting needs a lot of energy to overturn.
Sounds total confusion over there.
What a laugh! As I was reading this a woman on PBS from "reporters without borders"stated that Scandanavia tops the list in countries with the best freedom of the press.
Update and OT
Now there is a Muslim woman on who wrote a book with John Esposito called "Who speaks for Islam". Did you know that only 7% of the one billion Muslims hate the west? And by the way they would not commit terrorism only support it AND their problem with the west has nothing to do with Islam. Its political. OY my head.
In the other thread, Armance described how modern liberalism is a backlash to the lack of ethics and the fatalism of the primitive cultures, only more unethical.
Here Graham just described how democracy is the least flexible of all political systems, making it virtually impossible to change the way a country is governed. There are so many layers of processes cementing the rule to be identical to what it always was. First of all the invariable voting patterns, as described by Graham. But more importantly, the fact the no matter what under what label the government governs--liberal, socialist, Christian democratic, compassionate conservative--you get exactly the same output. Exactly the same lemming march toward cultural, moral and economical breakdown. The Democracy itself is the high and mighty God, the politicians are merely temporary caretakers and can do nothing to change the course.
In the old monarchies there were checks and balances. A king had a personal and lifelong relation to his rule. A democratic country is common property, and common property nobody really cares for. And since it belongs to nobody, you can give it away to anybody (masses of migrant foreigners and/or superstate empires). In a monarchy it's very clear that a country is private property, to the king and by extension to the people, whom the king is representing.
Even a responsible politician does not stand a chance in a democracy. There's nothing you can do really to change the course of a country, the way it's ruled, in a 4-5 year time span. In the old monarchies a king could look some 20-30 years ahead, and thereby get things done. Each king put his personal impression on his way of ruling. That was a truly pluralistic system, as opposed to the conformistic democracy. And a really bad king would be toppled. But in a democracy there is no way to get rid of the oligarchy of politicians. It's built into the system that they will stay there forever, until they have destroyed the country and it no longer exists.
The mixed constitution--monarchy with both a democratic and an aristocratic component--has always been the height of civilization, all since the time of the Romans, and up until our 19th century. The 20th century has been the century of death and destruction, in the name of French Revolution slogans. And the 21st century is reaping time, when this civilization will finally eat itself up.
Archonix said--
Sweden has been governed by the Social Democrats for nearly the whole of the 20th century, so much that it's become almost unthinkable to vote for anyone else. There's the same attitude around where I live, where people have voted Labour since the party first formed...
Your observation made me think of the Church of England. In times past, people belonged to it becaue of inertia. Then they slowly abandoned the pews.
Perhaps that will happen to Labour also, i.e., it will slowly be abandoned.
Of course this analogy limps somewhat since those leaving the church didn't necessarily go to another one. Following the analogy to its logical conclusion, were the same phenomonen to occur, people simply wouldn't vote because participatory politics would have lost its meaning, too.
I suppose that makes things easier for the ruling, unregulated elites.
Con Swede said --
A democratic country is common property, and common property nobody really cares for. And since it belongs to nobody, you can give it away to anybody (masses of migrant foreigners and/or superstate empires).
I respectfully disagree. The influx of immigrants here in the US is being contested in nearly all the states, and they are passing laws making it harder for big businesses in their area to so easily exploit immigrant labor.
That is one reason John McCain is looked upon with suspicion; he favors open borders. If he wins, citizens across the spectrum will be watching him carefully. I expect to see a further rise in anti-immmigrant groups.
How this will affect the so-called "sanctuary cities" remains to be seen. They can be neutralized by their states if the various legislatures are leaned on.
Anyway, there are too many unknowns, too many forks in the path, for us to be able to predict what will happen down the road. It really is a chaotic system; all we can do is guess and speculate.
Spackle --
John Esposito is owned -- lock, stock and barrel -- by the Saudis.
Jihad Watch calls him another Lord Haw-Haw. Indeed he is.
"John Esposito Responds"
Your observation made me think of the Church of England. In times past, people belonged to it becaue of inertia. Then they slowly abandoned the pews.
Perhaps that will happen to Labour also, i.e., it will slowly be abandoned.
A good comparison, especially since much of that change happened when one generation died off and the next one couldn't be bothered getting up on the Sunday.
The Whigs disappeared within a single generation, and the Liberal party (now the libertarian half of the Liberal Democrats) went the same way within a single decade. Since the general election is about two years away it's possible that Labour will end up as the failed third party next time around, with the tories in power and the lib dems in opposition. The party is falling apart the same way the tories did under Major. There's already been a veiled threat to 'overthrow' Brown from a prominent backbencher. Interesting times.
Dymphna,
I respectfully disagree. The influx of immigrants here in the US is being contested in nearly all the states
The US is further in the development than any European country, only 2/3 of the original demos left. And yes, now there is some hand-waving going on. But the influx continues without interruption.
and they are passing laws making it harder for big businesses in their area to so easily exploit immigrant labor.
If passing laws would have solved the problem, then the problem would already have been gone. The necessary laws are already in place. Do I need to remind you that the influx we are talking about is mainly illegal aliens? The problem is that the laws are not being enforced.
That is one reason John McCain is looked upon with suspicion
He was recently appointed the Republican candidate for President with overwhelming majority. That's how much this suspicion matters. The other guy is Obama. Doesn't look like things are going in the right direction to me.
Con Swede--
That's a dystopian view of the US and I don't think it's accurate. I have seen much evidence -- which doesn't make it to the MSM -- that the liberals are being fought on this issue.
John McCain got the nomination because it was "his turn." The Republicans have a bad habit of playing by their rules. That's how Bob Dole got the nomination even though everyone knew he would lose.
As I've said before, people whose lives are affected are beginning to make noises on the local level. That percolates up to the state legislatures, who have more control than you realize.
I am taking a wait-and-see attitude on this one.
BTW, parts of Arizona and New Mexico have made the illegals' lives so difficult that it is easier to return to Mexico. In fact, the biggest complainer about this state of affairs is the Mexican government.
I've often thought that the best solution to this would be to pay the illegals whatever it was that they would be sending home in remittances for the 5 years or so they're here. It would go to them directly, *not* to Mexico. And the currency would be in pesos, not dollars.
That way, Mexico would still get the remittances it needs for its economy, the illegals could go home (which they want to do anyway), and it would be cheaper all around for the US.
Big business would fight it, but they can be gotten 'round.
We could also organize some type of Peace Corps for Mexico to build hospitals and schools. Again, cheaper in the long run.
The necessary laws at the local level are not in place...yet.
Think local, Con Swede.
Dymphna,
It's good to see ordinary people react in he US (including the local level), quite as there are efforts in Europe. I followed it closely regarding the S.1348.
But these efforts have been steamrolled by your establishment. Even if the US is a better functioning democracy on paper than the EU, I don't see that much difference in practice. Now your next president will be McCain or Obama. And your states have less power vs. the federation, than a European country has vs. the union. I think we can expect your next president to push through the shamnesty. What could the states do then?
Even if the US is a better functioning democracy on paper than the EU, I don't see that much difference in practice.
I could, and maybe should, rephrase that to say: Even if the US is a better functioning democracy in practice than the EU, I don't see that much difference in effect.
The result is still the same.
Well, it is a great debate going on and as such I have to crawl into the conversation. But first let me say the following:
A poll was realised here recently in Portugal and at the light of the events on the Italian elections and what happened in Spain, I have to agree: Portugal and Spain are not really Europe, Europe seems to start when one cross the Pyrenees.
The hard left (and I don't mean, hard like Labour, I mean really hard.) got 20% of the votes and the "Socialists" (the local Labour or the local PSOE (from Spain), being the PS, Socialist Party) got some 40%.
The hard left is composed of Communists (The PCP, Portuguese Comunist Party, allied with the Greens) and the Left Block, an Anarchist block.
Communism is for the elder and the Block is for the youth. You get it. 20%!!!
Politically, we in this Peninsula are worst than anywhere in Europe but, maybe Macedonia or Belarus.
Also, the poll talked about the possibility of some minor parties getting their first chance into the government.
The only two with real chances are:
1) The PCTP-MRPP, or the Communist Party of the Portugese Workers - Revolutionary Movement for the Portuguese Proletariat is the most probable to make it to pairlmant. It is the last standing MAOIST party in Europe! It has been gaining support of some hard left youth who doesn't trust the Leftist Block and the old hard leftists who are sad with the PCP.
2) The far right. They have been infiltrated many minor political parties and may be capable of uniting all of them in a coalition. Probably a Monarchist will be the head of the far right if they want it.
The coalition is not stupid after the Socialists with a majority (an almost absolute power) edited a law in which all parties with less than 5 thousand militants would be forced to cease to exist. Portugal is alomst the same size as Sweden so, 5 thousand militants is a great deal.
So you can see how it is bad down here in the South West of Europe.
With 10% of "ethnics" that can not be confirmed and a non stop immigration and all the problems of the European countries, I think we are worst than Sweden, politically, despite the fact that we have some latin machism that makes some things I heard happened in Sweden impossible to happen here. But this new generation has no culhões (cojones, in Spanish) so... I've already heard of a fourteen year old black guy robbing a ten year old Portuguese boy in a bus full of people. No Portuguese men was capable of help the children. The fourteen year old was scared by a seventy years old black lady so you can see where the culhões are going...
Now the debate:
"They vote for that party because their parents and grandparents voted for that party. That sort of traditional voting needs a lot of energy to overturn."
Yes indeed. Here, the two most heard arguments for voting the left is: The right wing people are bad fascist folks who have no love for humanity and fascism never again!
As well as,
My mother was leftist, I am leftist and my children will be lftist. As long as they do not vote PP... a minor (they say) right wing party, the far right in the parliament but they have only six men there, one of whom is an "ethnic", and the the name of the party has "Centrist" in it. They are populists from the centre, not right wing...
That is simply stupid because, even if one wants to be Traditionalist, the ideas of the parties in question do change. It makes not sence at all.
Conservative Swede. Great post!
Have you ever talked about that Roman thing to anybody else?
I came to the same conclusion six months earlier and all I could hear from other people, even some I consider more intelligent than I am, was screaming it is wrong and no argument.
People take democracy as a good thing per se. I do not agree at all.
Are you sure you are Swede?
I advise you to read Julius Évola, he says some great things, despite the fact that he is to right wing for me.
"The mixed constitution--monarchy with both a democratic and an aristocratic component--has always been the height of civilization, all since the time of the Romans, and up until our 19th century. The 20th century has been the century of death and destruction, in the name of French Revolution slogans. And the 21st century is reaping time, when this civilization will finally eat itself up."
Or maybe, the XXI century will be the return to the Roman root aftr a great, great war in which "civilization will finally eat itself up".
The concepts of Imperium, Maximum Pontifex and other words are astonishing...
I know you speake a barbaric language, but in my Latin language we have the word "Revolução" to Revolution.
It comes directly from the Latin, "Revolutio" meaning, "restoring the old order". Nowadays, it is used in its opposite sense, it means, "destroying the old order".
It is incredible how our world has been killed by the left.
Conservative Swede, are you anti deomcratic?
Do you have a sense that only a dictator can make a "Revolutio", or you don't care about it at all?
"Your observation made me think of the Church of England. In times past, people belonged to it becaue of inertia."
It's difference Dymphna, it is not inertia, it is Tradition. Something that can not be applied to politics. That is also why we comemorate Christmas, because of inertia? I don't think so.
That's also why I consider myself an "anti-Church cultural Catholic" despite the fact that I was only baptised as such. It is tradition, it is part of our culture. Politics is different, it was suppose for us to protect our culture trough politics. Or so I think.
"I respectfully disagree. The influx of immigrants here in the US is being contested in nearly all the states, and they are passing laws making it harder for big businesses in their area to so easily exploit immigrant labor."
Also Dymphna, I may be wrong, but I think Con Swede was talking of a sense of union and nationalism that the U.S.A. has never known. The U.S.A. has gradually been giving the country to anybody: Non Anglo Europeans, blacks, indians and now even Asians and Mexicans.
I think the U.S.A. is the most perfectly example of what Conservative Swede meant.
"Since the general election is about two years away it's possible that Labour will end up as the failed third party next time around, with the tories in power and the lib dems in opposition."
The Labour will not fall because it has an "ethnic" base. If it goes down there, it can perfectly become an anti-English/Brittish party, advocating for the cause of ethnic minorities in the U.K.
"The US is further in the development than any European country, only 2/3 of the original demos left."
Conservative Swede? Two Thirds?
The United States is 75% white; 66% non hispanic white of which, according to wikipedia:
10% Latin (Italian, French, Portuguese, Spaniards are considered Hispanics); 11% Irish; 15% German.
So, it is only 15% Anglo at best.
The United States was not for Europeans, it was for English people. Brazil at least stills 30% Portuguese and Argentina 50% Spanish.
Dymhpna, the cheapest way to stop mass immigration is to put the army in control over the border, shooting at who wants to come in. Here, in the Algarve we have it for centuries because the muslims of North Africa used to capture people in the cost and sent them to North Africa, men and children and slaves, women as slaves or concubines. It only stoped in 1830s when France conquered Algeria. It also stopped when Portugal controled North of Morocco and the Gibraltars's Straith in the XV century.
Despite all. I would like my country to adopt the model of the U.S..
I think they have a superior model in what regards the European Union, but again, they are a super power, they can do as they want.
At least the United States still is an elitist capitalist meritocracy, isn't it?
Afonso,
You are really full of enthusiasm today.
Portugal and Spain are not really Europe
Thanks to Franco/Salazar you are some decade behind. You had the '60s delayed and so on. The euphoria about universal liberalism and the illusion of a positive development and bright future has been going on longer for you. You are closing up however, but are still some five years behind. But you are definitely Europe -- of course!
Conservative Swede. Great post!
Have you ever talked about that Roman thing to anybody else?
Yes, and there would be posts in my blog about it. And thanks!
I came to the same conclusion six months earlier and all I could hear from other people, even some I consider more intelligent than I am, was screaming it is wrong and no argument.
Supposedly intelligent people say so many stupid things.
Are you sure you are Swede?
No, I think the records might be wrong :-)
I advise you to read Julius Évola
Thanks for the advice, but I didn't read him and I don't need to.
Conservative Swede, are you anti deomcratic?
I'm in favour of a mixed constitution with a democratic component, so that's hardly anti-democratic. But I'm all against democratism, i.e. dogma that mass democracy is the only legitimate political system -- not the least because democratists consider me an evil heretic. Democratism is truly totalitarian in nature. I represent an open mind, keeping it open for a plurality of different solutions.
Do you have a sense that only a dictator can make a "Revolutio", or you don't care about it at all?
"Dictator" is democratism speak (as you said, words change), and implies that the ruler has stolen the country. I would prefer a king, which implies that he's the rightful owner of the country.
But yes, only a strong leader can, with the consent of the people, turn around the situation. Let's hope it will also be a good leader.
Also Dymphna, I may be wrong, but I think Con Swede was talking of a sense of union and nationalism that the U.S.A. has never known.
I was speaking of democracies in general.
The United States was not for Europeans, it was for English people.
No, United States was for a mix of protestant Europeans.
Afonso,
Here, here and here are places where I discuss the importance of our Roman heritage.
As you'll find, our Roman values are the last thing I stick to, when I have lost belief in everything else.
"You are really full of enthusiasm today."
Or probably rage...
"But you are definitely Europe -- of course!"
Yes, but we are "peculiar". If you really look into our History:
1) The Romans had great difficulties in "Civilising us". They had fight us for two hundred years (France and Belgium were conquered in twenty or something). And the more they went to the North and West, the more Celtic it was, more difficult it was for the Romans. Especially in the Northwest that was "less Civilised";
2) We had the first functional Germanic kingdom of Europe, especially the Suabian, operating in the Northwest;
3) Than, we had to fight the muslims for five hundred years (in Portugal) to eight hundred years (in Spain). Also, the same pattern, the muslims never touched the Northwest and went essentially to the Southeast;
4) When "real Europe" takes the Crusades to the fire, we here, simply change their names (Order of Christ, for example, whose cross you can see in the Portuguese Football team, the Air force ane many more are a new Name to the Knight Templars) and became a paradise for such orders;
5) We went on to colonise the world when "real Europe" were sleeping. We went to Morocco, than Africa, than America, than India, than Asia, than the whole world but Australia;
6) When Hitler was to be born, we already had something called the Inquisiton and "Aryan purity laws or something" called "Limipieza de sangre/Limpeza de sangue/Cleaness of blood" to find out an exterminate Jews, muslims, and whoever was to please the church and the nobility. Also, before the E.U, the U.S. or any other multiculturalism were to be enforced, we already had a multicultural society with blacks, indians, and muslims (North Africans) as slaves, especially in the South.
7) In the XIX century, thanks to the evildoers of Europe, I mean, France and the United States, with their stupid revolutions and declarations of independence, we go from one of the richest of Europe to one of the poorers. Because:
a) Napoleon, the guy that was worse than Hitler, invaded us and destroyed our wealth and power.
b) Because of the French Revolution we start to have people with those riciculous ideas of egalité, liberté et fraternité which lead to civil wars that putted us to our lower levels in centuries in what international credibility is concerned.
c) Because the Americans think it is cool to be independent, despite the fact they are in Indian's lands, our colonies in America, that were where we were getting our wealth from (it was like today Middle Eastern resaurces on oil), start getting independent. And once we gave all our Asian colonies to other powers: We, Portuguese gave India to the Britts, Indonesia to the Dutch and Taiwan to the Japs, and the Spaniards would in the XIX century give the Philipines to the Americans. We got even poorer.
We only suck with our African colonies (which were half of what we had in the XVI century).
I think that this is the great problem. The XIX century, not Salazar or Franco. The XIX century and the muslims because the Visigoths were a bit stupid...
But it continues...
8) We start to have leftist governments, the Republic in Portugal and in Spain.
9) Than we got the Fascists (fortunateley we didn't had the war the Spaniards had, but we also are a Nation, and that is one of the benefits of being a Nation. The civil wars are rarer) untill the mid 70s when Europe got it untill 1945 at best.
10) And now we are part of that great Empire called the European Union and dark times are ahead.
We are peculiar, aren't we? Our History is somewhat more Hispanic than European and, especially in the Northwest that was the nucleous of this country.
"I'm in favour of a mixed constitution with a democratic component, so that's hardly anti-democratic."
I agree with you 100%. I am your fan. I just wanted to ask you two more things:
1)Would that system be elitist but meritocratic and where all the equality is in regard with oportunities?
" But I'm all against democratism, i.e. dogma that mass democracy is the only legitimate political system -- not the least because democratists consider me an evil heretic. Democratism is truly totalitarian in nature. I represent an open mind, keeping it open for a plurality of different solutions."
Indeed my friend, indeed...
""Dictator" is democratism speak (as you said, words change), and implies that the ruler has stolen the country. I would prefer a king, which implies that he's the rightful owner of the country."
A Dictator can be legitimate. He does not have to "stole" the country. In Roman times, the Dictator was viewd as in intermediary between degradation and the "Revolutio" and as so was only temporary. You can see to Franco, for example. He fits this traditon. Salazar or even Fidel Castro (I hope) also, but Franco is the best exapmle in my opinion.
"But yes, only a strong leader can, with the consent of the people, turn around the situation. Let's hope it will also be a good leader."
"It is our duty to create an order of great men who can put a "good leader" in power to fight all this situation"
This could have been a quote of Julius Évola.
One think that always striked me, after the 9/11 and I being interested in all this events was the Nazi slogan:
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furher"
And Hitler saying the Reich would last 1000 years.
What was it? Was Hitler planning to live a millenia?
"No, United States was for a mix of protestant Europeans."
Maybe you're right. I heard that there were many Swedes, Germans and Scottish there also but I thought they were there to be the "lower classes". It will not surprise me that you are right.
Anyway, Catholic Irish, Eastern Barbaric peoples like Poles and swarthy Italians, Spaniards, Greeks or Portuguese or even stinky French were not wellcomed. So the American demos is less than 66%. I would say, some 35% tops...
That is why the "white" word is so important over there. It is the new pathos. I really hope America never to become like Mexico or Brazil, with a "brown" demos and a white ruling elite.
It certainly leds to situations like Venezuela.
Thanks.
Afonso -- Your post was too long for me to work my way through.
However, if you are interested in our roots in Romanity, here's the book:
Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization
The original is in French. The author is Rémi Brague. If you find French easier to read than English, I suggesst googling for that one.
____________
Con Swede:
We haven't even begun to fight. There are more ways to skin a cat than simply having the Imperial Congress pass laws, pushed by the President.
At the state level we have referenda options, and at the municipal level, several communities have been successful in preventing the bankruptcy of their social services by passing laws re illegal immmigrants. So far, they haven't made it to the Supremes yet, though last I heard, Hazelton PA was waiting their turn. That was in Jan. or Feb.
S.1348 is not the last word on the subject of immigration. The more pressure that individual senators feel from their constituents, the more likely they are to act. It's the only antidote to incumbency, and Senators know it. So do their voters.
It may come down to a duel between the Congress and the Supremes, but this is by no means a closed subject.
We'll see what McCain has to say about his position, depending on whom he needs to persuade.
And after that, in 2010, there are congressional elections. Depending on how out-of-hand the lawlessness has become, there may be a real turnover in seats.
This fight is going to go on for a loong time. Maybe not in time to save California, but that was always Mission Impossible anyway.
As for the Joos, you and Afonso can go at it till you get tired. I will continue to celebrate Israel's birthday at least until the 14th, and maybe beyond.
Now that Hezbollah has taken over Lebanon for all intents and purposes, that area will definitely hot up.
Dead Bambi forgot to send her regards. I'm sure it was an oversight.
Dymphna,
Once a shamnesty is in place that's check mate, all the aliens are legal, and there's nothing the states can do about it.
As for the Joos, you and Afonso can go at it till you get tired.
I can honestly say that I didn't expect this sort of haughty comment after defending you. I will leave Your Highness alone from now on and only mingle with the filthy populace.
Afonso,
I agree with you 100%. I am your fan.
Sorry, no autographs :-)
1)Would that system be elitist but meritocratic and where all the equality is in regard with oportunities?
You need to ask the king :-)
But yeah, that could be a good system. But a system is not just constructed like that, it will always be based on the history of the country. And I wouldn't use the word "elitist" to describe what I see as a good society. But an important thing is to have many competing elites. This is the best guarantee for de facto checks and balances. In an egalitarian mass democracy all intermediate elites disappear and there is only the one distant political oligarchy against the people, and the people becomes more powerless than in any other system.
In Roman times, the Dictator was viewd as in intermediary between degradation and the "Revolutio" and as so was only temporary.
Quite as "revolution" has changed its meaning since then so has "dictator", and when we use them today this is not the context. Not until the day we would adapt Roman constitution again.
Conservative Swede:
You're right. I jumped without looking. I apologize for presuming your present behavior would be the same as your past. That limits another's possibilites.
BTW, the populace isn't filthy, just very, very tired. You're seeing weariness, not dirt.
Dymphna,
I apologize for presuming your present behavior would be the same as your past.
My present and my past have been a constant. You rudely jump to conclusions about my past actions.
As I pointed out to the Baron, it's mainly been Dead Bambi and Esther who have been obsessing about the Joos and created oversized threads about it.
I think Your Highness didn't look too closely that time either.
Thank you Dymphna, for the advise concerning the book.
But, didn't Fjordman made a presentation of the book?
I thought the book to be really anti-Rome.
Saying that Europe is a mixture of Jewish and Greek culture. And saying that all the Romans did was propagate the culture.
I do not agree with that at all.
Concerning the Jewish question, my objective was never to restrain you from celebrating the Jewish State.
Conservative Swede,
I look at Franco and, he was really a "Roman Dictator". Anyway, I would just like to know what are you refering to when you say "competing elites".
Is it, Ministers vs Judges?
Also, don't you feel that the "place" of the women should be completeley reverted?
I mean, such a society will only be possible to implement if the women stopped with all the femininism.
Post a Comment