yeah he certainly knows his stuff, i like him so far, i'd prefer him than the fascist cunt david cameron and his gaggle of self serving talking heads.
Maybe we should start a revolution throughout the the world or something... get rid of these damn corrupt politicians, to the point of Dan's speech, wonderful points and wonderful ideas. THere should be more politicians like him. Cheers from America!
@VolunteerLS110 Well, yes, although his point was made more to force the EU to get into line with the basic principle of democracy rather than calling for a revolution. In short, being pragmatic and reasonable.
Enoch Powell was also a Tory MP, it is not cast in stone you must follow the party doctrine...only weak people follow like sheep. Hannan is certainly not weak and if he joined a smaller political party his words would carry less impact!
@shgp1956 - Powell was being suffocated by the high Tory culture that`s at the heart of the Conservative Party, which listenend to him politiely but would never act on his remorseless logical clarity. Powell`s moment of realisation came when he scored such a pathetic result in the leadership ballot in 1965 compared to the light weights he was up against, which caused him ultimately to walk out.
If UKIP had been around then, Powell wouldn`t have had to go into exile to the Ulster periphery.
Great speech but his party will never leave the EU nor will he ever be elected as leader. He is unfortunatley just leading a lot of Tory members on if they think the torys are ever gonna get a vote.
I love Hannan and all the things he says but if he was if he keeps getting shafted by his party and doesnt leave for just say UKIP or some other anti EU party thats wanting self governance then nothing will ever change.
Politicians mismanage finances then call taxpayers greedy, when the politicians are the greedy ones, feathering their own nest with perks, pensions, and p*ssy.
Marxists in the UK and US are spending and taxing us into socialism at local, state and federal level. Time to purge these traitors from our societies.
I bet my money that in three years time Daniel Hannan will leave the Torys the same way Enoch Powell did. The Conservative Party of the UK is no longer conservative. That is for sure.
@MetalHeadViking: Given that it's fairly common knowledge that the BNP owes its origin to the old British Nazi Party, while the Conservatives trace back to the 1600s... yeah.
@tucays1 Your question is strange. Wikileaks works for the CIA and the Pentagon. Assange has strong ties to the CFR and is finased by George Soros. Whatever Sweden does about this psy-op does not really matter. The hole thing is a big show.
Thumbs way up, Mr. Hannan. We should be moving towards *less* centralized government. In America, every time there's any problem in society, we immediately ask, "what should the federal government do?" I say, "what should the state, or the county, or the municipality, or the neighborhood do?"
@Aeschylus YOu should ONLY say what can I do? You cannot force action or goodness by the initiation of force on others (which what ALL governments do - they take taxes by force (theft) and then they profess to do something "good" with it - what a farce).
If YOU feel like doing something do it and gently try to persuade others to do it if they think it is a good idea
@Aeschylus thankyou. i would even be willing to to see more political control exercised, if only it was more local, say at the council or neighboorhood level. at least then you have the option of seeing and talking to those in power. It's also a more important issue i think. i mean the anti-authoritarian left and right should at least work together on this, and then push and pull in what ever direction.
@PatchesRips I'm geussing you are a wall street banker who is trying to usher in the NWO, if you knew anything about American history then you would know that the founding fathers would say thats exactly what America is about. You sir are a blinded, narrow minded fool. You obviously want to see everyone bare some kind of mark to be identified everywhere they go and you have no care for the real communities that help everyday people.
@revolutionary17 "if you knew anything about American history then you would know that the founding fathers would say"
I do know something about US history and that's NOT what the Founding Fathers said. They spent 11 years fumbling around under the Articles of Confederation and scrapped them for a "more perfect union" that included an executive and guaranteed federal powers that were not doled out by the states--the most important powers. Defederating was not what they intended.
well it seems you didn't clearly understand the roll the federal goverment was ment to have....it was so the states could have a unified avenue to the world, and especially to wage war as a unified nation.. not so the federal goverment could undermine state laws, or negate them totally... we saw what happened when they overtaxed the south..didn't we?
@dekonfrost7 "it was so the states could have a unified avenue to the world, and especially to wage war as a unified nation"
If you think the US Constitution was essentially an outward-facing document, this would indicate to me that you have not, in fact, read the thing. It goes into explicit detail about the powers of different levels of government within the US, their relationship to one another, rights of the people,
...the nature and scope of judicial powers, the process of ratification, the structure and authority of the federal government and the means of filling its offices, etc., etc., etc. Only on the merest handful of crucial issues does it even mention the outside world, and then principally to exclude the member states from representing themselves in it.
@dekonfrost7 "we saw what happened when they overtaxed the south..didn't we?"
Oh, not this rubbish again. You show me one single ordinance of secession that mentions tariffs. I can show you several that explicitly mention slavery or implicitly with the ellipsis of "our property". They would have seceded in the 1830s or 1840s if tariffs had in fact been the key to disunity.
If the South were intent on secession on the basis of taxation, then why did they secede, en masse, in the weeks and months immediately following the election of Abraham Lincoln, who was on record as wishing to prevent the spreading of slavery to the territories and, perforce, the admission of any further slave states?
@PatchesRips Lincoln said himself, the civil war wasnt about slavery, rather to perserve what the union was and maintain its power. Its also a little known rumor he had servants whom he didnt pay... but the south seceded mainly because of envy, they had many years of power until lincoln overthrew that. It was a quite complex situation the whole civil war and souths secession from the union! Ill give your idea merit though, its just there is more to it than that. :)
@HoldupnWatch "Lincoln said himself, the civil war wasnt about slavery"
Lincoln said he did not intend to assail slavery where it existed. But the Southerners who declared secession and fired on Fort Sumter, actually starting the war, didn't agree, and said so specifically in their four Declarations of Secession.
"Its also a little known rumor he had servants whom he didnt pay"
There might be a rumor he was Chinese, too. But without proof, it's just a rumor.
@HoldupnWatch "the south seceded mainly because of envy"
The south seceded to preserve slavery, and said so, explicitly, using the word 38 times across their four Declarations of Secession. Seven of the eleven Confederate states seceded between the time of Lincoln's election and his inauguration. He was kept off the ballot in ten southern states on the basis of his opposition to the expansion of slavery into federal territories.
It was, in fact, the clash of free labour and slavery, a fear the North would eventually ban slavery, and the implicit moral judgement cast on the ownership of fellow human beings that caused the war.
You'll notice, I think, that tariffs are still there in its aftermath. Slavery is not.
Interesting to hear an Englishman citing the Trotsky of the 1776 American revolutionaries, who thruout his life was an implacable enemy of England & supported every endeavour to destroy it.
@kcirdrab How is Jefferson comparable to Trotsky? Jefferson is remembered as the intellectual inspiration for the revolution and _was_ President for eight years. While he was Minister to France during the Constitutional Convention, he's more favored than Madison who wrote it, and was instrumental in the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
He was never exiled or assassinated; his ideas never disregarded; the comparison to Trotsky is just bizarre and stupid.
@macornelius- Jefferson was just the mouthpiece for a revolutionary cabal dressing up a power heist with high-flown words, most of which he lifted from more better thinkers such a Edmund Burke
Every revolutionary gang has 1: the Nazis = Goebbels; Bolsheviks = Trotsky; the French heist gang = Robespierre, America is lucky that the cabal that took over in 1781 didn`t turn into mayhem, if it had Jefferson would have been there amidst it making clever excuses until facing the chop himself
@kcirdrab There are numerous problems with your claim:
(1) WTF are you saying Goebbels, Trotsky, Robespierre, and TJ all had in common?
(2) The only somewhat relevant event (to taking over) in 1781 is the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, a constitution replaced less than a decade later. No one took over anything in 1781.
(3) A cabal works, by definition, for private gain, not public interest, and definitely not by bankrupting themselves personally.
1. Check out my 1st reply, & actually r-e-a-d it rather than jumping to yr pre-set default attitude to Jefferson.
2. 1776 was a power heist by 1 aristocracy kicking out another, nothing more, all the rest (mostly provided by Jefferson) was just window dressing to disguise the putsch as something more noble.
3. The only leader of the revolutionary cabal that didn`t profit from the take-over was Ben Arnold, all the others loaded themsleves up afterwards with money & power.
@kcirdrab the things you say are correct, but these men were human beings, not demi-gods. Of course pecuniary interests were a linchpin of the revolution, but there is a fact kept hidden from the history books they use to educate ignorant Americans. Basically, the Bank of England (which really ran the empire) said the colonies could no longer use their own interest-free fiat currency and instead had to borrow gold at interest from the bank. The forefathers knew this meant economic slavery.
1776 was 1 Anglosphere aristocratic cabal fighting with another about money & power, the rest is just myth mostly created by Jefferson as a cover for it.
@kcirdrab The one good lesson we can learn from this part of history is that a country can flourish if it takes control of its money supply (they actually put it in the Constitution by saying only Congress has the power to create money). We have given up the sovereign right of money creation to a private bank cleverly called "The Federal Reserve" to hide its for-profit motives. We are now run by the exact banking cartel the framers fought against.
@LawyerScumGhost - No, I don`t agree that the 1776 Revolution was a resistance to a banking cartel based in Threadneedle Street, as I say, it was 1 element of English aristocrats fighting another for class domination of the 13 Colonies & the power & money that went with it.
I think it`s a stretch to say Clinton & his Red Coated Brigades were running up & down the East Coast as agents for the Bank of England, & Washington & his blues were fighting the "economic slavery" of the BOE.
@kcirdrab Obviously the bankers involved have long since expired, but their ideological progeny are alive and well. Think of the parallels of England and America: once great empires mired in endless wars and endless debt. If Americans were force to "pay as we go" to fight these pathetic wars, I guarantee they would end immediately. That is the evil of fiat currency, it can be created out of thin air and in any amount a central bank deems necessary.
1. I did read it (and hypenating read is just (a) retarded and (b) ungrammatical).
2. In 1776, all Jefferson did was write the Declaration of Independence. They were men of means, but aristocratic they were not.
3. Benedict Arnold _did_ profit quite substantially from the Revolution; he was convicted of embezzling £1200 pounds before he ever switched sides (again for money: £6,000), 15,000 acres, loan forgiveness, etc. Several revolutionary leaders had been killed by then.
@macornelius-Jefferson was the philosophical propagandist for the Revolutionaries, dressing them up as something other than what they really were
Yr shifiting yr ground on Point 3. Arnold ended up a broken financially, most of the other revolutionary leaders (who survived, but that`s the risk you take when staging an armed heist) didn`t "bankrupt" themselves for the cause, they ended up with power & wealth in consequence, which was why they were doing it in the 1st place
@kcirdrab I didn't shift my ground at all. Arnold profited substantially from the war; he was tried and convicted of embezzlement before he switched sides, for an even larger sum, and non-monetary compensation.
If your perception is that Arnold died poor and Jefferson rich, your history is backwards. Jefferson didn't lose it all during the Revolution, but he did die bankrupt.
And, according to any dictionary, aristocratic means having inherited privilege, prestige, power, and social status.
@maconlius- I said Arnold was 1 of the few revolutionary leaders not to profit from the takeover in terms of money or power, not that he was a straight up guy
The fact Jefferson wrecked his family`s wealth & the taxes he recieved is neither here or there, after the revolution he held massive ruling power in the New Regime including the Imperial throne itself
Take yr defintion of aristocracy, apply it to the revolutionary cabal in the context of the society of the 13 Colonies = they qualify
@kcirdrab I know what you said about Arnold and it's wrong: he directly profited more than most from the conflict: a £6,315 salary, £315 pension, 15,000 acres, £12,000 loan repayment with £900 and Parliament's favor.
Revolutionaries, by definition, get their power by breaking established power structure: Jefferson inherited 5,000 acres and a few dozen slaves, nowhere near the wealthiest, and not at all powerful. The nadir of his wealth was much later. He sacrificed much, squandered nothing.
@macornelius - No what I said was Arnold was 1 of the few leaders of the revolutionary cabal who didn`t profit in terms of money or power, i.e. he died bankrupted & without power, the rest of the cabal profited very nicely from the business
You`ve been owned totally on the aristocracy issue.
The American Revoultion was a cynical power heist by 1 group of English aristocrats fighting with another over of who dominated America, nothing more
@kcirdrab I didn't say Arnold had power at the end, but he did indeed have more money than most of the actual leaders of the Revolution, and all of it because of political favors rather than any economic sense.
Now, on to the issue of aristocracy, WHAT FUCKING POWER DID THEY INHERIT? (Especially Jefferson, for whom you seem to be particularly harsh.)
Your claims are nonsensical, backed only by historical ignorance and logical fallacy, even though there is much to disparage some of them for.
@macornelius - Arnold died bankrupt, what r u talking about?
You`ve been owned on the aristocracy issue, you know it & just haven`t the style to admit it; as I said, take yr definition of aristocracy & apply it to most of the Revolutionary cabal, & you`ll see that they were almost all drawn from the social elite of the 13 Colonies. Jefferson was brought up surrounded by the trappings of money & power, so you can ditch yr Fed agenda that the "Founding Fathers" were classless men of the people.
@kcirdrab Arnold did not die bankrupt; he was well paid for his treason, he was paid a handsome salary for the time and a generous pension, had the favor of Parliament to absolve most of a loan he had, and while he had debt, he was by no means bankrupt.
Jefferson was certainly not born poor, but his inheritance was much less than many others that did nothing. INHERITED POWER is a defining characteristic of aristocracy, of which he had none (along with the rest of the Founding Fathers).
@macornelius - Arnold died owing money, & his wife had to appeal for help to his friends to pay off creditors. Yr ridiculous Fed inspired fairy tale of "Evil Benedict Arnold" doesn`t wash anymore.
Jefferson was a part of the socially elite New Colonial aristocracy that had formed in the 13 Colonies, he inherited wealth & power & influence from this class, & then went to war with another aristocracy at 3000 miles` distance to dominate the 13 Colonies, period.
@kcirdrab I don't know what you mean by “Fed inspired,” but no. Benedict Arnold committed embezzlement, espionage, and treason. I did not call him evil, and your purporting that I did is called a straw man. Your claim that my “tale” is “Fed-inspired” is a logical fallacy known as “poisoning the well.”
Jefferson was born middle class. He made himself wealthy and then sacrificed it. That is distinct from INHERITING POLITICAL POWER, the characteristic of aristocracy which seems to elude you.
@macornelius - How can Arnold commit treason against a state which didn`t formally exist when he turn coated? How weren`t the revoutionaries committing "treason" by waging war against England which they were a part of?
Treason is a matter of dates, & the fact that yr happy to level the charge at Arnold but not the Revolutionary leadership shows a 1 dimensional bigoted view of history
"Jefferson was middle class & self made" - lol, his family were wealthy slave plantation landowners!
@kcirdrab “Wealthy slave plantation landowners” did not leave 5,000 acres a few dozen slaves. “Middle class & self made” is again a straw man. That is not what I said, and while you believe you're paraphrasing, that is a complete change in meaning.
As for Arnold committing treason “against a state which didn`[sic]t formally exist when he turn coated [sic],” that's really simple: (1) the United States did exist and (2) crimes are committed against people, not against states.
@mcorelis - Touched a nerve haven`t we! You can always tell a preppy by how when they`re routed they leap on spelling, grammer, quic (go on jump on that 1) typos, it shows such inferiority & any1 with any real class doesn`t do it. YT's a debating place for ideas, not presentation
You`ve been owned on Jefferson being "middle class", so you might as well drop that 1 too
The USA didn`t exist when Arnold turn-coated & "Treason" is a term denoting betrayal of a legal authority, not a "people"
@kcirdrab The revolutionaries cannot have committed treason by waging war against England for several reasons: (1) don't conflate British and English; (2) there was nothing to cause allegiance to the British crown, which had declared them out of his protection; (3) Parliament was not representative of their interests; (4) while Queen Anne was the last British monarch to refuse Royal Assent to a bill in the British Parliament in 1707, it was the routine treatment for colonial legislatures. (etc.)
@mconlius- "England" is a generic name in the Anglosphere for "British", if you really knew anything about its culture you`d understand the use of the word in this way
The Crown hadn`t declared America out of its protection, it sought to keep legal order in the 13 Colonies from mobs led by the Revolutionaries & protect the loyalist portion of the community which was being terrorized in many places. Calling Arnold "Traitor" whilst praising the Revolutionaries is a double standard
@kcirdrab I am not sure what this argument is about, but B. Arnold was a traitor, whereas the Revolutionaries were British subjects but not treated as such...
@kcirdrab If that were indeed a legitimate statement of the facts then the British would never have entered into an agreement with Arnold over the fortifications at West Point and certainly would not have given him troops to command in Connecticut once the New York plot had been discovered.
@kcirdrab You're conflating INHERITED power with all power, and I _DID_ not call them “classless” and that assertion is fallacious. That they were a cabal is, by definition, false. That they were aristocratic is, by definition, false. That they imposed a new aristocracy over the U.S. is risible. They prohibited the establishment of aristocracy, by forming a federal republic, with strict separation of powers between the central and state governments, and among the branches within each level.
The 1776 leaders were a cabal, already wealthy & powerful; they were a New Aristocracy in the 13 Colonies that set up the East Coast WASP class`s rule, politically, socially, & financially, under the guise of constitutionalism. They centralised power in DC, turning America away from its chance to be an Anglosphere continent of a mulitplicity of nations, & laid the foundation for a single Imperial edifice which Lincoln later completed, & is now in decay
@kcirdrab (1) Please learn the difference between ` (grave accent) and ' (an apostrophe). One is useful in English, the other not. I wouldn't want anyone to think you an idiot.
(2) How is prohibiting religious tests for office in the supreme law of the land entrenching white Anglo Saxon Protestants' class rule when they were not all Anglo Saxon and not all Protestant? (For example, TJ and Franklin were Deists, there were a few Catholics, many were ethnically Scots-Irish, German, etc.)
@mcornlius- The punctuation issue again, I rest my case! I hit the grave key because I find it easier when quick typing, only a preppy would have noticed it
Yr point about WASPs is a flailing 1, in this context it refers to a governing East Coast powerful class whose ascendancy & dominance was established by the Revolutionary cabal, confining it to arguments about racial purity or religion is retarded
I`ve given you some pretty heavy "true history" ideas, think about what I`ve said
@kcirdrab I've never been a preppy, and in any case, that's an ad hominem, another logical fallacy. I notice it because it's absurd & not English. (Pero si te gustaría continuar esta conversación en otro idioma, lo puedo.)
Claiming that WASPs are not defined by religion and ethnicity is absurd. What the fuck are you claiming then?
Again, you misuse the word cabal: it does not mean people forming a new state; it means subverting them for private gain. Most of them lost & all gain was public.
@DOHC2L No. The correct term is logical fallacy. “Of” is a preposition indicating origin, cause, or instigation more than general relation, unlike the suffix -al, which indicates nothing more than a general relation.
The term “logical fallacy” is the normal term outside of very particular fields, wherein it's known as a formal fallacy. There are fallacies unrelated to illogic, known as informal fallacies, such as your equivocation fallacy in the comment I'm replying to.
@doucher337 - "& was ever such a prize won without innocent blood? ... rather than it should have failed I would rather have seen 1/2 the earth laid desolate"
That`s Jefferson admonishing William Short, the American Govenment`s Charge des Affaires in Paris as the Terror was underway when Short was protesting over the atrocities.
Get real about Jefferson. If such a thing had started in the 13 Colonies Jefferson would have been dancing up to his neck in blood & writing prose to justify it.
yeah he certainly knows his stuff, i like him so far, i'd prefer him than the fascist cunt david cameron and his gaggle of self serving talking heads.
S1elmx 17 hours ago
Maybe we should start a revolution throughout the the world or something... get rid of these damn corrupt politicians, to the point of Dan's speech, wonderful points and wonderful ideas. THere should be more politicians like him. Cheers from America!
HoldupnWatch 3 days ago
There is something fractal about this. EU power vs national power, national power vs devolved power, county vs country
LeithMusic 1 month ago in playlist More videos from DanHannanMEP
How wonderfully ironic... Jefferson was, of course, alluding to the corruption of the British Parliament with regard to the American colonies.
PatchesRips 8 months ago
A British politician quoting Thomas Jefferson? America likes this. Jefferson would approve.
Seriously, though, good points.
VolunteerLS110 10 months ago 41
@VolunteerLS110 Well, yes, although his point was made more to force the EU to get into line with the basic principle of democracy rather than calling for a revolution. In short, being pragmatic and reasonable.
darwincity 3 weeks ago 2
@VolunteerLS110 Just sad America is the Tyranny now you fought, Jefferson would be turning in his grave
Baldwynmayhem 3 weeks ago
@VolunteerLS110 Jefferson is probably one of the greatest statesman ever, almost everyone pales in comparison especially in recent times.
TWSceptic 1 week ago 4
Once more, with feeling: I do not want ever to be outside the political party Daniel Hannan is in.
lordrosemount 1 year ago
SO much common sense in so little a clip..
ecg1992 1 year ago
Enoch Powell was also a Tory MP, it is not cast in stone you must follow the party doctrine...only weak people follow like sheep. Hannan is certainly not weak and if he joined a smaller political party his words would carry less impact!
shgp1956 1 year ago
@shgp1956 - Powell was being suffocated by the high Tory culture that`s at the heart of the Conservative Party, which listenend to him politiely but would never act on his remorseless logical clarity. Powell`s moment of realisation came when he scored such a pathetic result in the leadership ballot in 1965 compared to the light weights he was up against, which caused him ultimately to walk out.
If UKIP had been around then, Powell wouldn`t have had to go into exile to the Ulster periphery.
kcirdrab 1 year ago 2
Great speech but his party will never leave the EU nor will he ever be elected as leader. He is unfortunatley just leading a lot of Tory members on if they think the torys are ever gonna get a vote.
I love Hannan and all the things he says but if he was if he keeps getting shafted by his party and doesnt leave for just say UKIP or some other anti EU party thats wanting self governance then nothing will ever change.
NicosMind 1 year ago
common sense prevails
allan9654 1 year ago
This guy is always right on target
Eddiefry 1 year ago
Politicians mismanage finances then call taxpayers greedy, when the politicians are the greedy ones, feathering their own nest with perks, pensions, and p*ssy.
JoeyFudd 1 year ago
Daniel, please come to Texas ... we need you ....
lkw1287 1 year ago
Marxists in the UK and US are spending and taxing us into socialism at local, state and federal level. Time to purge these traitors from our societies.
ed1642 1 year ago 2
WOW! That was beautiful.....
justgetsome 1 year ago
You need to come to the states and enter politics.
muchosa1 1 year ago
I bet my money that in three years time Daniel Hannan will leave the Torys the same way Enoch Powell did. The Conservative Party of the UK is no longer conservative. That is for sure.
MetalHeadViking 1 year ago
@MetalHeadViking the conservative party in the UK, is the old nazi party.
tucays1 1 year ago
@tucays1
would you care to present any evidence what so ever for your claim...?
MetalHeadViking 1 year ago
@MetalHeadViking: Given that it's fairly common knowledge that the BNP owes its origin to the old British Nazi Party, while the Conservatives trace back to the 1600s... yeah.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@JCLeSinge What does that have to do with anything? & what are you talking about?
MetalHeadViking 1 year ago
@MetalHeadViking is sweden still kissing the USA`s` ass or do they still promise revenge for wikileaks?
tucays1 1 year ago
@tucays1 Your question is strange. Wikileaks works for the CIA and the Pentagon. Assange has strong ties to the CFR and is finased by George Soros. Whatever Sweden does about this psy-op does not really matter. The hole thing is a big show.
MetalHeadViking 1 year ago
Self-serving bureaucracy.
Athenaikos 1 year ago
WHERE THE FUCK IS EVERYONE!!!!
Th2EyA0rEa1MoN2gUs 1 year ago
Thanks for this video, keep them coming! No media house in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia are willing to publish any negativity about EU ...
Hannan's masterpiece speech from yesterday was translated for people of western Balkans here: watch?v=i6XA1NkK8SE
yadranko 1 year ago 2
Thumbs way up, Mr. Hannan. We should be moving towards *less* centralized government. In America, every time there's any problem in society, we immediately ask, "what should the federal government do?" I say, "what should the state, or the county, or the municipality, or the neighborhood do?"
Aeschylus 1 year ago 44
@Aeschylus Not enough, you should go as far as "what should individuals do?" ;)
rumco 1 year ago
@Aeschylus Well stated, Sir!
DasKammergericht 1 year ago
@Aeschylus YOu should ONLY say what can I do? You cannot force action or goodness by the initiation of force on others (which what ALL governments do - they take taxes by force (theft) and then they profess to do something "good" with it - what a farce).
If YOU feel like doing something do it and gently try to persuade others to do it if they think it is a good idea
grumpone 1 year ago
@Aeschylus And when people start saying "what should I do?" then we might actually be free of ALL the bastards entirely.
klaptongroovemaster 10 months ago
@Aeschylus thankyou. i would even be willing to to see more political control exercised, if only it was more local, say at the council or neighboorhood level. at least then you have the option of seeing and talking to those in power. It's also a more important issue i think. i mean the anti-authoritarian left and right should at least work together on this, and then push and pull in what ever direction.
100CommonCents 9 months ago
@Aeschylus "what should the... neighborhood do?"
Yay, back to the Stone Age...
PatchesRips 8 months ago
@PatchesRips I'm geussing you are a wall street banker who is trying to usher in the NWO, if you knew anything about American history then you would know that the founding fathers would say thats exactly what America is about. You sir are a blinded, narrow minded fool. You obviously want to see everyone bare some kind of mark to be identified everywhere they go and you have no care for the real communities that help everyday people.
revolutionary17 4 months ago
@revolutionary17 "if you knew anything about American history then you would know that the founding fathers would say"
I do know something about US history and that's NOT what the Founding Fathers said. They spent 11 years fumbling around under the Articles of Confederation and scrapped them for a "more perfect union" that included an executive and guaranteed federal powers that were not doled out by the states--the most important powers. Defederating was not what they intended.
PatchesRips 4 months ago
@PatchesRips
well it seems you didn't clearly understand the roll the federal goverment was ment to have....it was so the states could have a unified avenue to the world, and especially to wage war as a unified nation.. not so the federal goverment could undermine state laws, or negate them totally... we saw what happened when they overtaxed the south..didn't we?
dekonfrost7 4 months ago
@dekonfrost7 "well it seems you didn't clearly understand the roll the federal goverment was ment to have"
Have you ever read the US Constitution? If not, you should. If you have, you clearly haven't understood it...
PatchesRips 4 months ago
@dekonfrost7 "it was so the states could have a unified avenue to the world, and especially to wage war as a unified nation"
If you think the US Constitution was essentially an outward-facing document, this would indicate to me that you have not, in fact, read the thing. It goes into explicit detail about the powers of different levels of government within the US, their relationship to one another, rights of the people,
(cont'd)
PatchesRips 4 months ago
@dekonfrost7 (cont'd)
...the nature and scope of judicial powers, the process of ratification, the structure and authority of the federal government and the means of filling its offices, etc., etc., etc. Only on the merest handful of crucial issues does it even mention the outside world, and then principally to exclude the member states from representing themselves in it.
PatchesRips 4 months ago
@dekonfrost7 "we saw what happened when they overtaxed the south..didn't we?"
Oh, not this rubbish again. You show me one single ordinance of secession that mentions tariffs. I can show you several that explicitly mention slavery or implicitly with the ellipsis of "our property". They would have seceded in the 1830s or 1840s if tariffs had in fact been the key to disunity.
(cont'd)
PatchesRips 4 months ago
@dekonfrost7 (cont'd)
If the South were intent on secession on the basis of taxation, then why did they secede, en masse, in the weeks and months immediately following the election of Abraham Lincoln, who was on record as wishing to prevent the spreading of slavery to the territories and, perforce, the admission of any further slave states?
(cont'd)
PatchesRips 4 months ago
@PatchesRips Lincoln said himself, the civil war wasnt about slavery, rather to perserve what the union was and maintain its power. Its also a little known rumor he had servants whom he didnt pay... but the south seceded mainly because of envy, they had many years of power until lincoln overthrew that. It was a quite complex situation the whole civil war and souths secession from the union! Ill give your idea merit though, its just there is more to it than that. :)
HoldupnWatch 3 days ago
@HoldupnWatch "Lincoln said himself, the civil war wasnt about slavery"
Lincoln said he did not intend to assail slavery where it existed. But the Southerners who declared secession and fired on Fort Sumter, actually starting the war, didn't agree, and said so specifically in their four Declarations of Secession.
"Its also a little known rumor he had servants whom he didnt pay"
There might be a rumor he was Chinese, too. But without proof, it's just a rumor.
PatchesRips 3 days ago
@HoldupnWatch "the south seceded mainly because of envy"
The south seceded to preserve slavery, and said so, explicitly, using the word 38 times across their four Declarations of Secession. Seven of the eleven Confederate states seceded between the time of Lincoln's election and his inauguration. He was kept off the ballot in ten southern states on the basis of his opposition to the expansion of slavery into federal territories.
It was about slavery.
PatchesRips 3 days ago
@dekonfrost7 (cont'd)
It was, in fact, the clash of free labour and slavery, a fear the North would eventually ban slavery, and the implicit moral judgement cast on the ownership of fellow human beings that caused the war.
You'll notice, I think, that tariffs are still there in its aftermath. Slavery is not.
PatchesRips 4 months ago
Comment removed
wh4tever84 1 year ago
I think TJ would like this Mr.Hannan
Fockersnextdoor 1 year ago
Daniel for gods sake join UKIP, its time....
wellsmokemeakipper 1 year ago 25
@wellsmokemeakipper What party does he belong to?
assgrabberb 1 year ago
@assgrabberb He is a Conservative Party MEP
wellsmokemeakipper 1 year ago
@wellsmokemeakipper I always just assumed Nigel and him were on the same team.
assgrabberb 1 year ago
@wellsmokemeakipper Hannan is not suited to UKIP. He is a libertarian.
Rattlesnakemeuk 1 year ago
@Rattlesnakemeuk Farage isd a Libertarian too and UKIP has many libertarian members.
NicosMind 1 year ago
@wellsmokemeakipper this is real conservatism
wardydave 9 months ago
@wellsmokemeakipper absolutely right - the only thing I don't understand about him
Eurotruth 4 months ago
If there was ever an era to turn back to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, it is the era of which we live.
uk6strings 1 year ago
That's my guy, Thomas Jefferson! .. Screw the EU!
mallardhead 1 year ago
bravo!!!
starkiller1 1 year ago
I'm surprised they didn't accuse you of treason for quoting Thomas Jefferson.
MacDragard 1 year ago
Thomas Jefferson was a Very Great Man.
Public schools in USA are Socialist - they teach Lies about America's Founders.
3martijns 1 year ago
@3martijns - The "Founder" of America was Walter Raleigh
kcirdrab 1 year ago 6
Interesting to hear an Englishman citing the Trotsky of the 1776 American revolutionaries, who thruout his life was an implacable enemy of England & supported every endeavour to destroy it.
kcirdrab 1 year ago 5
@kcirdrab How is Jefferson comparable to Trotsky? Jefferson is remembered as the intellectual inspiration for the revolution and _was_ President for eight years. While he was Minister to France during the Constitutional Convention, he's more favored than Madison who wrote it, and was instrumental in the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
He was never exiled or assassinated; his ideas never disregarded; the comparison to Trotsky is just bizarre and stupid.
macornelius 1 year ago 2
@macornelius- Jefferson was just the mouthpiece for a revolutionary cabal dressing up a power heist with high-flown words, most of which he lifted from more better thinkers such a Edmund Burke
Every revolutionary gang has 1: the Nazis = Goebbels; Bolsheviks = Trotsky; the French heist gang = Robespierre, America is lucky that the cabal that took over in 1781 didn`t turn into mayhem, if it had Jefferson would have been there amidst it making clever excuses until facing the chop himself
kcirdrab 1 year ago 2
@kcirdrab There are numerous problems with your claim:
(1) WTF are you saying Goebbels, Trotsky, Robespierre, and TJ all had in common?
(2) The only somewhat relevant event (to taking over) in 1781 is the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, a constitution replaced less than a decade later. No one took over anything in 1781.
(3) A cabal works, by definition, for private gain, not public interest, and definitely not by bankrupting themselves personally.
macornelius 1 year ago
@macornelius -
1. Check out my 1st reply, & actually r-e-a-d it rather than jumping to yr pre-set default attitude to Jefferson.
2. 1776 was a power heist by 1 aristocracy kicking out another, nothing more, all the rest (mostly provided by Jefferson) was just window dressing to disguise the putsch as something more noble.
3. The only leader of the revolutionary cabal that didn`t profit from the take-over was Ben Arnold, all the others loaded themsleves up afterwards with money & power.
kcirdrab 1 year ago 3
@kcirdrab the things you say are correct, but these men were human beings, not demi-gods. Of course pecuniary interests were a linchpin of the revolution, but there is a fact kept hidden from the history books they use to educate ignorant Americans. Basically, the Bank of England (which really ran the empire) said the colonies could no longer use their own interest-free fiat currency and instead had to borrow gold at interest from the bank. The forefathers knew this meant economic slavery.
LawyerScumGhost 1 year ago
@LawyerScumGhost - Interestng point.
1776 was 1 Anglosphere aristocratic cabal fighting with another about money & power, the rest is just myth mostly created by Jefferson as a cover for it.
kcirdrab 1 year ago 2
@kcirdrab The one good lesson we can learn from this part of history is that a country can flourish if it takes control of its money supply (they actually put it in the Constitution by saying only Congress has the power to create money). We have given up the sovereign right of money creation to a private bank cleverly called "The Federal Reserve" to hide its for-profit motives. We are now run by the exact banking cartel the framers fought against.
LawyerScumGhost 1 year ago
@LawyerScumGhost - No, I don`t agree that the 1776 Revolution was a resistance to a banking cartel based in Threadneedle Street, as I say, it was 1 element of English aristocrats fighting another for class domination of the 13 Colonies & the power & money that went with it.
I think it`s a stretch to say Clinton & his Red Coated Brigades were running up & down the East Coast as agents for the Bank of England, & Washington & his blues were fighting the "economic slavery" of the BOE.
kcirdrab 1 year ago 3
@kcirdrab Obviously the bankers involved have long since expired, but their ideological progeny are alive and well. Think of the parallels of England and America: once great empires mired in endless wars and endless debt. If Americans were force to "pay as we go" to fight these pathetic wars, I guarantee they would end immediately. That is the evil of fiat currency, it can be created out of thin air and in any amount a central bank deems necessary.
LawyerScumGhost 1 year ago
@kcirdrab
1. I did read it (and hypenating read is just (a) retarded and (b) ungrammatical).
2. In 1776, all Jefferson did was write the Declaration of Independence. They were men of means, but aristocratic they were not.
3. Benedict Arnold _did_ profit quite substantially from the Revolution; he was convicted of embezzling £1200 pounds before he ever switched sides (again for money: £6,000), 15,000 acres, loan forgiveness, etc. Several revolutionary leaders had been killed by then.
macornelius 1 year ago
@macornelius-Jefferson was the philosophical propagandist for the Revolutionaries, dressing them up as something other than what they really were
Yr shifiting yr ground on Point 3. Arnold ended up a broken financially, most of the other revolutionary leaders (who survived, but that`s the risk you take when staging an armed heist) didn`t "bankrupt" themselves for the cause, they ended up with power & wealth in consequence, which was why they were doing it in the 1st place
Define "aristocratic".
kcirdrab 1 year ago 3
@kcirdrab I didn't shift my ground at all. Arnold profited substantially from the war; he was tried and convicted of embezzlement before he switched sides, for an even larger sum, and non-monetary compensation.
If your perception is that Arnold died poor and Jefferson rich, your history is backwards. Jefferson didn't lose it all during the Revolution, but he did die bankrupt.
And, according to any dictionary, aristocratic means having inherited privilege, prestige, power, and social status.
macornelius 1 year ago
@maconlius- I said Arnold was 1 of the few revolutionary leaders not to profit from the takeover in terms of money or power, not that he was a straight up guy
The fact Jefferson wrecked his family`s wealth & the taxes he recieved is neither here or there, after the revolution he held massive ruling power in the New Regime including the Imperial throne itself
Take yr defintion of aristocracy, apply it to the revolutionary cabal in the context of the society of the 13 Colonies = they qualify
kcirdrab 1 year ago 2
@kcirdrab I know what you said about Arnold and it's wrong: he directly profited more than most from the conflict: a £6,315 salary, £315 pension, 15,000 acres, £12,000 loan repayment with £900 and Parliament's favor.
Revolutionaries, by definition, get their power by breaking established power structure: Jefferson inherited 5,000 acres and a few dozen slaves, nowhere near the wealthiest, and not at all powerful. The nadir of his wealth was much later. He sacrificed much, squandered nothing.
macornelius 1 year ago
@macornelius - No what I said was Arnold was 1 of the few leaders of the revolutionary cabal who didn`t profit in terms of money or power, i.e. he died bankrupted & without power, the rest of the cabal profited very nicely from the business
You`ve been owned totally on the aristocracy issue.
The American Revoultion was a cynical power heist by 1 group of English aristocrats fighting with another over of who dominated America, nothing more
Jefferson sacrificed nothing & profited greatly
kcirdrab 1 year ago
@kcirdrab I didn't say Arnold had power at the end, but he did indeed have more money than most of the actual leaders of the Revolution, and all of it because of political favors rather than any economic sense.
Now, on to the issue of aristocracy, WHAT FUCKING POWER DID THEY INHERIT? (Especially Jefferson, for whom you seem to be particularly harsh.)
Your claims are nonsensical, backed only by historical ignorance and logical fallacy, even though there is much to disparage some of them for.
macornelius 1 year ago
@macornelius - Arnold died bankrupt, what r u talking about?
You`ve been owned on the aristocracy issue, you know it & just haven`t the style to admit it; as I said, take yr definition of aristocracy & apply it to most of the Revolutionary cabal, & you`ll see that they were almost all drawn from the social elite of the 13 Colonies. Jefferson was brought up surrounded by the trappings of money & power, so you can ditch yr Fed agenda that the "Founding Fathers" were classless men of the people.
kcirdrab 1 year ago
@kcirdrab Arnold did not die bankrupt; he was well paid for his treason, he was paid a handsome salary for the time and a generous pension, had the favor of Parliament to absolve most of a loan he had, and while he had debt, he was by no means bankrupt.
Jefferson was certainly not born poor, but his inheritance was much less than many others that did nothing. INHERITED POWER is a defining characteristic of aristocracy, of which he had none (along with the rest of the Founding Fathers).
macornelius 1 year ago
@macornelius - Arnold died owing money, & his wife had to appeal for help to his friends to pay off creditors. Yr ridiculous Fed inspired fairy tale of "Evil Benedict Arnold" doesn`t wash anymore.
Jefferson was a part of the socially elite New Colonial aristocracy that had formed in the 13 Colonies, he inherited wealth & power & influence from this class, & then went to war with another aristocracy at 3000 miles` distance to dominate the 13 Colonies, period.
Stop yr Fed myth making..
kcirdrab 1 year ago
@kcirdrab I don't know what you mean by “Fed inspired,” but no. Benedict Arnold committed embezzlement, espionage, and treason. I did not call him evil, and your purporting that I did is called a straw man. Your claim that my “tale” is “Fed-inspired” is a logical fallacy known as “poisoning the well.”
Jefferson was born middle class. He made himself wealthy and then sacrificed it. That is distinct from INHERITING POLITICAL POWER, the characteristic of aristocracy which seems to elude you.
macornelius 1 year ago
@macornelius - How can Arnold commit treason against a state which didn`t formally exist when he turn coated? How weren`t the revoutionaries committing "treason" by waging war against England which they were a part of?
Treason is a matter of dates, & the fact that yr happy to level the charge at Arnold but not the Revolutionary leadership shows a 1 dimensional bigoted view of history
"Jefferson was middle class & self made" - lol, his family were wealthy slave plantation landowners!
kcirdrab 1 year ago
@kcirdrab “Wealthy slave plantation landowners” did not leave 5,000 acres a few dozen slaves. “Middle class & self made” is again a straw man. That is not what I said, and while you believe you're paraphrasing, that is a complete change in meaning.
As for Arnold committing treason “against a state which didn`[sic]t formally exist when he turn coated [sic],” that's really simple: (1) the United States did exist and (2) crimes are committed against people, not against states.
macornelius 1 year ago
@mcorelis - Touched a nerve haven`t we! You can always tell a preppy by how when they`re routed they leap on spelling, grammer, quic (go on jump on that 1) typos, it shows such inferiority & any1 with any real class doesn`t do it. YT's a debating place for ideas, not presentation
You`ve been owned on Jefferson being "middle class", so you might as well drop that 1 too
The USA didn`t exist when Arnold turn-coated & "Treason" is a term denoting betrayal of a legal authority, not a "people"
kcirdrab 1 year ago
@kcirdrab The revolutionaries cannot have committed treason by waging war against England for several reasons: (1) don't conflate British and English; (2) there was nothing to cause allegiance to the British crown, which had declared them out of his protection; (3) Parliament was not representative of their interests; (4) while Queen Anne was the last British monarch to refuse Royal Assent to a bill in the British Parliament in 1707, it was the routine treatment for colonial legislatures. (etc.)
macornelius 1 year ago
@mconlius- "England" is a generic name in the Anglosphere for "British", if you really knew anything about its culture you`d understand the use of the word in this way
The Crown hadn`t declared America out of its protection, it sought to keep legal order in the 13 Colonies from mobs led by the Revolutionaries & protect the loyalist portion of the community which was being terrorized in many places. Calling Arnold "Traitor" whilst praising the Revolutionaries is a double standard
kcirdrab 1 year ago 3
@kcirdrab I am not sure what this argument is about, but B. Arnold was a traitor, whereas the Revolutionaries were British subjects but not treated as such...
MrBasilGanglia 1 month ago
@kcirdrab If that were indeed a legitimate statement of the facts then the British would never have entered into an agreement with Arnold over the fortifications at West Point and certainly would not have given him troops to command in Connecticut once the New York plot had been discovered.
ConcealedCarrier 1 month ago
@ConcealedCarrier yr kicking over the wreckage of a big fight here a year back, you'll need to clarify for me what point of mine yr referring to?
kcirdrab 1 month ago
@kcirdrab You're conflating INHERITED power with all power, and I _DID_ not call them “classless” and that assertion is fallacious. That they were a cabal is, by definition, false. That they were aristocratic is, by definition, false. That they imposed a new aristocracy over the U.S. is risible. They prohibited the establishment of aristocracy, by forming a federal republic, with strict separation of powers between the central and state governments, and among the branches within each level.
macornelius 1 year ago
@maconelus- Victor`s history garbage
The 1776 leaders were a cabal, already wealthy & powerful; they were a New Aristocracy in the 13 Colonies that set up the East Coast WASP class`s rule, politically, socially, & financially, under the guise of constitutionalism. They centralised power in DC, turning America away from its chance to be an Anglosphere continent of a mulitplicity of nations, & laid the foundation for a single Imperial edifice which Lincoln later completed, & is now in decay
kcirdrab 1 year ago
@kcirdrab (1) Please learn the difference between ` (grave accent) and ' (an apostrophe). One is useful in English, the other not. I wouldn't want anyone to think you an idiot.
(2) How is prohibiting religious tests for office in the supreme law of the land entrenching white Anglo Saxon Protestants' class rule when they were not all Anglo Saxon and not all Protestant? (For example, TJ and Franklin were Deists, there were a few Catholics, many were ethnically Scots-Irish, German, etc.)
macornelius 1 year ago
@mcornlius- The punctuation issue again, I rest my case! I hit the grave key because I find it easier when quick typing, only a preppy would have noticed it
Yr point about WASPs is a flailing 1, in this context it refers to a governing East Coast powerful class whose ascendancy & dominance was established by the Revolutionary cabal, confining it to arguments about racial purity or religion is retarded
I`ve given you some pretty heavy "true history" ideas, think about what I`ve said
kcirdrab 1 year ago 2
@kcirdrab I've never been a preppy, and in any case, that's an ad hominem, another logical fallacy. I notice it because it's absurd & not English. (Pero si te gustaría continuar esta conversación en otro idioma, lo puedo.)
Claiming that WASPs are not defined by religion and ethnicity is absurd. What the fuck are you claiming then?
Again, you misuse the word cabal: it does not mean people forming a new state; it means subverting them for private gain. Most of them lost & all gain was public.
macornelius 1 year ago
@macornelius "Logical fallacy" is an oxymoron. The correct term is "fallacy of logic."
DOHC2L 1 year ago
@DOHC2L No. The correct term is logical fallacy. “Of” is a preposition indicating origin, cause, or instigation more than general relation, unlike the suffix -al, which indicates nothing more than a general relation.
The term “logical fallacy” is the normal term outside of very particular fields, wherein it's known as a formal fallacy. There are fallacies unrelated to illogic, known as informal fallacies, such as your equivocation fallacy in the comment I'm replying to.
macornelius 1 year ago
@kcirdrab
Come on now. Robespierre was a terrorist, not a propagandist like the others you mention. Hath thou forgotten what precisely the Reign of Terror was?
doucher337 1 year ago
@doucher337 - "& was ever such a prize won without innocent blood? ... rather than it should have failed I would rather have seen 1/2 the earth laid desolate"
That`s Jefferson admonishing William Short, the American Govenment`s Charge des Affaires in Paris as the Terror was underway when Short was protesting over the atrocities.
Get real about Jefferson. If such a thing had started in the 13 Colonies Jefferson would have been dancing up to his neck in blood & writing prose to justify it.
kcirdrab 1 year ago 3
So true Daniel, so true.
Keep up the good work Sir.
NowisEvollovetion 1 year ago
Yes, yes!
BlueSkies360 1 year ago