[political cynicism] religion's worth a few votes

Liam Murray has a nice piece on the Democrats' attempts to wrest the "Christian" vote from the Republicans. Liam's no religious nutter so his views bear weight:

When UK commentators (usually from the secular left) criticise the influence of religion in American politics the normal target is the Republican party - an understandable position given the last 6 years and Bush's alarmingly regular invocation of 'God'. However, any hopes that the Democratic revival (either in Congress or probably the Whitehouse come '09) would see faith relegated again may be dashed by this story.

Fed up with Republican's claims of a monopoly on Christian values Linda Seger has written a book called "Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why Republicans Don't Have a Corner on Christ". I haven't read the book but there's an excellent podcast discussing many of the key issues over on Truthdig.com.

I don't subscribe to the militant atheist nonsense about banishing religion from politics altogether - too many good people have been inspired or sustained by a private faith. I still however think it should remain a largely private matter so I can't say the notion of Clinton / Obama or Edwards trying to wrestle a set of supposedly Christian values from McCain / Guilliani or Romney is a particularly appealing sight!

This was answered by someone named Paul [is there something in that name perchance?]:

All religion is primitive. It is a throwback to a mystical wish to explain without understanding. The "modern" religions are no more sophisticated than such things as tree worship. As an atheist I have no problem with people having "a faith" and will continue to support their right to celebrate their primitive comforts.

I replied:

Remarkably primitive, ignorant, ungracious and illogical comment from Paul Macmanomy. Typical atheist [and they like to think of themselves as positive].

He ignores the sustenance that not just faith but organizations like the Salvation Army and others afforded people during times of crisis such as the two wars. Though they preached, it was the example they set which scored better with the average person who went through those crises.

I may be wrong and correct me please but I never heard of atheist soup kitchens or shelters during those periods of crisis. Where were the socialists on the street giving sustenance at that time? To what did their rhetoric inevitably amount?

I haven't yet seen evidence to contradict the conclusion that atheists are truly ignorant people, with an immense sense of self-delusion and an even greater sense of denial, masquerading as intellectualism and enlightenment.

Of course, they would accuse me of the same self-delusion and sense of self-righteousness, of seeing my opinion as the only valid one. Of being insufferably smug and deserving of a pointed stick in an unpleasant Edward II type way. Perhaps they're right.

[britishness] does it mean anything to you

Martin Kelly wrote an article called What Being British Means To Me (If Anyone's Interested) and I'm going to quote it in full here:

In an editorial for 'Comment is Free' entitled 'What young British Muslims say can be shocking - some of it is also true', the professional Europhile Timothy Garton Ash writes that:

"I have always thought that the very undemanding vagueness, the duffle-coat bagginess of Britishness was an advantage when it comes to making immigrants and their descendants feel at home here. After all, what have you traditionally required in order to be British? An ability to talk about the weather at inordinate length. Being willing to mind your own business, to live and let live. A general inclination to obey the law of the land, more or less. Perhaps a mild interest in the royal family, football or cricket. That's about it.

The very idea of talking about ourselves as "citizens" has seemed to the British vaguely pretentious and foreign, more specifically French - and therefore bad. But perhaps a more demanding civic-national identity, like that of the French Republic, has its advantages after all, giving a stronger sense of identity and belonging."

The concept of Britishness to which he refers is not universal. The United Kingdom is comprised of three nations, a malfunctioning statelet and a couple of semi-autonomous island territories in the near offshore. His concept is one which is specifically English, and upper middle class, in origin.

Speaking for myself, my concept of Britishness is informed by a conscious rejection of the West of Scotland's sectarian tribal loyalties (sometimes quite difficult when others are parading them in your face) which motivates the abominable waving of Irish flags at Celtic Park by those happy to claim Her Majesty's Dole, and also of the petty but powerful allure of Scottish nationalism, in favour of the recognition that one is a citizen of a greater entity, with rights and duties to the greater whole.

In other words, Britishness is something which, even after nearly 150 years of my family's residence on the mainland, has had to be worked at. Thus I'm not really interested in the carping of those for whom special interest pleading is quite literally an article of faith.

And although Garton Ash might now see the importance of civic education, it's been attitudes like his that have helped to get us into the mess we're in today. An uncharitable suggestion concerning where he should store his duffle coat springs to mind.

I confess my attitude to Britishness is romanticized [possibly the effect of yearning from afar] but it was always the railway children, Falling Foss, Beckfoot Bridge, the canals, the Norfolk broads, Arthur Ransome, Carnaby Street, Twiggy, ska, Madness, two pints of lager and a packet of crisps please, real ale, Stamford Bridge, North Yorkshire moors, Betty's tearooms, Maggie's too, Hendon Aircraft Museum, the Spitfire, Python, the Young Ones, Pink Floyd, the A68 to Edinburgh and so on.

I suppose that explains some of the reactions to the concept of Britishness I introduced in the immigration post. What's your concept? ASBOs, education destroyed, NHS destroyed, post-modernist? I don't know.

[north american union] notes on the cfr

A few of us were having a nice coffee and discussing the NAU and the European Constitution yesterday.

The general consensus was that both will happen - the EU will get its army and central intelligence and NA will get its SPP. The questions are: "Why?" and: "Why now?"

The U.S. has an oil crisis. They've tried the Middle-East, they've tried Russia through ExxonMobil and the Japanese. On the other hand, Canada has huge 'secret' reserves and Mexico has also discovered reserves. The SPPNA is therefore the answer.

The waning U.S. hegemony could thus also be halted and the SPPNA could stand up to a renewed Europe, which is hell bent on arming itself and bringing in draconian legislation both pan-EU and within individual member nations, e.g. the latest UK 'breaking and entering' provisions.

As Angela Merkel warned - we can no longer take peace for granted. There's war on the way and a population is far more amenable to draconian measures in a wartime situation than in a peacetime.

Then there is the question of China and Russia. Russia will be kept happy and basically left alone, to ensure supplies. China is hellbent on creating seaports and land routes and generally building up - but for what?

Into this comes the CFR.

Involved on both sides of the Atlantic, their acquiescence to a war could only be for commercial reasons, unless of course it is just out of a sense of mischief, which could only be so if their master was someone we can't name.

Some have pointed out that the CFR is an American organization. True but its members are cross-integrated into Europe e.g. the high priest Kissinger and many names less well known to the general public. The Trilateral Commission, for example crosses country boundaries.

Martin Kelly notes the line in the NAU report:

“It is also essential that throughout a pandemic all borders and major roads remain open…”

… and from a British angle, quotes David Harrison, one of the last real journalists at the 'Sunday Telegraph' ... [who] notes that:

"Many more jobs could go abroad as big companies seek to minimise the potentially devastating impact of the virus that has already travelled from the Far East to Turkey, on the doorstep of Europe."

One should only now expect the United Kingdom's corporatocrats to take the opportunities presented to them by human disaster in order to further reduce their cost bases.

Lastly, I have a mixed attitude to the CFR. whilst they're without doubt one of the front organizations facilitating evil policy in the world, nevertheless, their predictions are worth noting - they do seem to get it right. I wonder how right they are about this prediction:

Charles A. Kupchan, CFR’s top Europe expert, says Nicolas Sarkozy “is in pretty good shape” for the presidential runoff and it remains to be seen if Royal can cut substantially into the centrist vote to emerge victorious.

On both issues, let's now wait and see.

Original article is here.

[bullingdon club] smashing job, chaps

By Sophie McBain

Eternally romanticised by Evelyn Waugh’s Decline and Fall, permanently enigmatic, these tailcoat wearing drunkards have become the stuff of legend. Now, finally, after almost 150 years of silence, The Oxford Student has got one of its members to talk.

Last December, images of snivelling Bullingdon members were splashed all over the tabloids after all 17 members were arrested for wrecking the cellar of the 15th century pub, the White Hart, in Fyfield.

17 bottles of wine were smashed into the walls of the pub after the civility of a gourmet meal descended into a brawl, leaving a trail of debris that was compared by eye-witnesses to a scene from the blitz. The inebriated members started fi ghting, leaving one with a deep cut to the cheek, and the landlord recalls attempting to pull apart the fighting parties, only to have them set on each other once more, exclaiming, “Sorry old chap, just a bit of high spirits.

Four members, including the ringleader, Alexander Fellowes, Princess Diana’s nephew, spent the night in jail. The legal consequences may have been unusual, but the antics were bordering on lame compared to previous incidents. The club was once banned from entering within a 15 mile radius of Oxford after all 550 windows of Christ Church’s Tom quad were smashed in one night.

‘I like the sound of breaking glass’ is one of the society’s mottos and particularly true of one member who, at L’Ortolan in Berkshire, took it upon himself to eat his wine glass rather than his Michelinstarred meal. At another infamous Bullingdon garden party, the club invited a string band to play and proceeded to destroy all of the instruments, including a Stradivarius.

If their aristocratic roots don’t bar them from hooliganism, they certainly don’t temper a certain penchant for good, old fashioned toilet humour. At the Bullingdon’s annual meeting at a point-to-point, one member, a Hungarian Count, pushed another, Daily Telegraph journalist Harry Mount, down a hill in a portaloo. George Osborne was watching the scene, as was The Oxford Student’s source: Fortunately it was quite early in the day and the unsuspecting victim was shaken but not stirred.

Once their three years is up, if their university career survives to its natural end, Bullingdon members go on to some of the most powerful and influential positions in the country. Harry Mount, George Osborne, Alan Clark, Lord Bath, David Dimbleby, Boris Johnson and "it has recently emerged" the Tories’ man of the people, David Cameron, were trained to the pressures of fame by the champagne quaffing, bellicose Bullingdon.

Cameron was member of the club at a time when it was de rigeur to engage in the ‘man of the people’ pursuits of washing down “a cocktail of drugs with an honest, working class box of chips and a five pound bottle of wine”. Looking at the impressive list of famous members and the impeccably tailored member before me, it seems hard to imagine why any of these last bastions of the British aristocratic classes would participate in activity more suited to British football fan culture.

Any member would no doubt be horrified by such a comparison; the Bullingdon is a ‘dining club’ not a ‘drinking society’, regardless of the fact that our source openly admits that they regularly get kicked out of restaurants for rowdiness before the main course arrives. Most Chelsea Headhunters would hold out till after pudding. More at home with a bottle of champagne in their hands than a can of Carlsberg, they are, above all, discerning yobs.

My source is quick to impress on me that they tend to leave one-off antique pieces untouched, preferring to inflict more replaceable damage. I wonder how replaceable a Stradivarius is. Or 550 windows for that matter. A large part of the members’ motivation is the feudal idea that its quite alright to inflict damage on peasants’ property, provided one is able to pay for it.

That’s why Alexander Fellowes, at the White Hart, tipped the waitress £200, on top of all of the members paying for the damage inflicted. Our source described the White Hart landowner as “unfair” for reporting the matter to the police and as having “no sense of humour”. Most people, he adds, are willing to let such matters slide in exchange for the remuneration on offer.

Although the eyewitnesses at the White Hart described the diners’ degeneration as appearing highly ritualised, our source denies that the Bullingdon’s outbursts are intended. He claims that, hard done by members always “intend to have a civilised meal”, but the historical precedent set by former Bullingdon generations means that somehow, after a couple of bottles of Dom Perignon, their expensive primal instincts are released.

That is not to say though that they wake up after a night of debauchery, in their vomit stained tailcoats, with intense feelings of regret - according to our source, the night at the White Hart was “objectively funny”. The Bullingdon seems to be guided by various strangely distorted moral ideas. Along with rule number one - ‘it’s quite fine to wreak havoc, provided you can pay for it’ - it seems to currently have a slightly peculiar drugs policy.

Super-rich druggies need to go to the Assassins or Piers Gaviston to engage in hallucinogenic pursuits, but our source insists that as far as drugs go, the Bullingdon has decided to become squeaky clean. Allegedly, the Bullingdon has never, even during its most drug-loving days, endorsed the use of marijuana, because it meant members were less likely to get the urge to smash things up. The relatively innocent champagne binging “adds to the Bullingdon’s charm”, our source adds.

Cue Bullingdon code number two: ‘passing out face down in your own vomit is quite charming, provided your illness is only alcohol induced’. The Bullingdon usually has between 15 and 70 members, but this year there are only seven. Are financial barriers holding back new membership? The Bullingdon is one of the most expensive of Oxford’s dining clubs.

The tailormade blue tailcoats cost at least £1,200 and a formal dinner, of which there are usually one or two a term, costs a fl at rate of £100, although once damages are added the cost is far greater than this. Richer members may have to pay an even larger membership fee, sometimes approaching £10,000. Nonetheless, our source claims that there are still plenty of people who are rich enough to join, but claims that it is hard fi nding “the right kind of people”.

Anyone who likes clubbing just doesn’t fi t into the Bullingdon mould. It certainly takes a certain kind of person to be willing to face the initiation ceremonies. All members have their rooms completely trashed as a basic initiation, additional requirements may vary. Our source recalls having to, after a whole day of drinking, down half a bottle of whisky in one. He doesn’t recall fi nishing it.

“The Stoics are all about vomiting, the Bullingdon’s about passing out,” he adds with an all-knowing air. Other reports of initiation ceremonies included having to drink five bottles of champagne. Members were each given a black bin-liner to throw up in, but the newcomers’ bin-liners had had the bottom cut out.

Why then do members to pay thousands of pounds to vomit, pass out, be ritually humiliated and be at permanent risk of being sent down or arrested? It is here that one might see fit to grant our blue tailcoat wearing friends some grudging pity; invitation is by membership only and perhaps new undergraduates are drawn into this society through some desperation to try and fit in. Like any society, the Bullingdon must attract members who want to be liked.

Forget the fact that the Bullingdon’s behaviour may isolate the rest of the university, as our source admits, as soon as you enter the Bullingdon, other members become your closest friends. Perhaps this is why so many of the members go on to become famous, after all a member of the Bullingdon must be willing to go through almost anything in order to gain approval. I suggest this to my source, who responds rather philosophically.

“I suppose there are two theories on this, maybe it is because it attracts people who are resourceful and determined, or maybe,” he adds thoughtfully, but with a hint of glee in his voice, “they are just privileged to start off with.” We may wonder, considering its dwindling membership and Oxford’s changing culture, whether the Bullingdon is coming to the end of its 150 year long existence.

With threats from colleges, run-ins with the police and a general lack of acceptance of its decadence, is there any space for such a society in 21st century Oxford? Our source is adamant that the events at the White Hart did not sound the death toll for the society.

He admits that all of the members have been “feeling rather paranoid” since last December and that they have had to rein in some of their wildest urges and keep their activities rather low-key but, he adds in defi ant tones, “The Bullingdon is in a spirit of recuperation and the controversy will soon rise again.”.

12th Jan 2005

[blogfocus tuesday] eight more to intrigue you

Let's go!

1 Welcome back to the boys at Asadodo and to a particularly interesting post on the Bullingdon Club:

So irresponsible was the Bullingdon, indeed, that to this day those invited to join the Club's 20-strong membership are welcomed by having their rooms trashed (something which, admittedly, many students are capable of achieving without the aid of some chinless types in dinner dress) and then required to book a private room at a local establishment where the Club's members can drink themselves into near insensibility before reducing the room to a state where it would look far from out of place in Central Baghdad.

Down the years the Club's reputation grew and grew. Lampooned by Evelyn Waugh as the Bollinger Club and attracting such (usually only briefly) upright members of society as bad artist and zookeeper Lord Bath, fraudster and thug Darius Guppy, gleefully caddish former minister Alan Clark and er, David Dimbleby, the Club spent its time in glorious irresponsibility, throwing bikes through windows, smashing street lights and carrying out assorted other activities which lead lesser mortals to criminal charges and Club members to throw large amounts of daddy's money at the victims.

2 Mutterings and Meanderings writes of that season which is upon some of us again:

The spring spider season has started in my house. Their favoured hang-out is my bath. I have recently removed two to prevent them from drowning. One was able to escape onto the windowsill; the other made a run for it across the floor, but alas, the cats did to it what cats do to small defenceless creatures.

The fact I can remove spiders is a big breakthrough; it wasn’t always the case. Now, I can put a glass over them, slide a leaflet that’s fallen out of a magazine (see, they do have a purpose) under them, and set them free. I am able to mock those afflicted with arachnophobia.

3 A much underestimated blogger, Paul Kingsnorth and I may have personal issues but his posts are well worth a look:

I'm not a great fan of St George myself - he's a bit of a silly saint and, since he never set foot on English soil, a rather inappropriate one. If we must celebrate our national days with Christian martyrs I'd rather go back to St Edward the Confessor, who was our original patron saint until St George was promoted over him during the thirteenth century. Edward was more peaceful, thoughtful and interesting and he had the added benefit of actually being English. St George took his place when post-Norman crusader kings promoted his cause on the grounds that he was good at kicking Muslims about (not dragons; that came later). Another good reason to demote him, in my view. It's just provocation.

4 UK Daily Pundit has the scoop* on that party animal, Iain Dale:

It was the party to end all parties - the mother of all parties one might say. Attended by the great and the good I suspect BBC Radio 4's News 2006 Christmas Party was a night to remember.

There was Gordon Brown and Cherie Booth, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, Ken Livingstone, Tony Blair, John Prescott and even Iain Dale .... Iain Dale?!?!?!

The list of guests invited to Radio 4's Christmas bash is more than 10 pages long and will make your eyes water.

* Information just to hand indicates that the said Iain Dale did not actually attend the event. [See comments below.]

5 Notsaussure, in his usual carefully written way writes of Blair and Iraq:

So isn’t he saying, in terms, that the carnage in Iraq wouldn’t have happened if it hadn’t been for the invasion? That the invasion was, at least in part, the cause of the current sectarian strife?

Yes, yes, if you’re foolish enough to ignore warnings not to keep your PIN number in your wallet along with your cards and you then leave your wallet lying around in a pub, that doesn’t excuse someone making off with your wallet and emptying your accounts, but you couldn’t thus wholly absolve yourself of your responsibility for the misfortune, could you?

6 Ian Grey speaks of bribery and corruption and I say thee should be more of it:

It is a thin line between a gift and a bribe of course, but unless you are a Company Director then the monetary value is generally low.

However, branding plays a role in the desirability. In 1988, I joined CCT Theatre Lighting, a good brand (number 2 in the market), well respected in the professional sector and thought of as a cool company. Shortly after I joined, they acquired Furse Theatre Products, a company well respected in the educational sector but with a poor image on the pro side, due to some rather duff ranges of products in the 60s & 70s.

Consequently, we did a big promotion at Riverside Studios (actually in a Pub down the road from the trade show) and had loads of T shirts made which proved very popular. I was visiting a theatre a few weeks later and the electrician asked if we had any left.

"Sorry", I said, "We've run out of CCT ones, but we have plenty of Furse ones left." Pause. "Oh-kay." he said. "I could always wear it for get-ins, or maybe when I'm cleaning out the Pit or the Roof Void."

7 Sisu is addressing the lightbulb revolution and Al Gore:

Whether or not you do this or that to cut down on your energy use, how can an honorable human person wallow in the cheap thrill of bragging about one's CO2 purity? Pride goeth before a fall. Are we ALL politicians now? In our view, it's all too human, a 21st-century, secular version of the venerable human sacrificing of virgins or offering of food you'd rather eat yourself to appease the gods. Akin to the religious indulgences of yore referenced by critics of Sir Alfred's own holier-than-thou offering of money for forgiveness a couple of weeks back when it came out that the Gores expended four times more energy than the average citizen per year just to maintain their one-of-many Tennessee homestead.

8 Jeremy Jacobs has a touching piece on the English resorts of yore and particular, his home town:

Margate, like so many of Britain's seaside resorts ha[s] become almost [a] ghost-town. Cheap foreign holidays, English weather and poor facilities have condemned places like Margate to the scrapheap. Successful seaside resorts like Bournemouth, Eastbourne, Brighton & Blackpool appear to have have adapted to change. Presumably, their local authorities have had the foresight to re-invent their respective towns in order to cater for modern trends. There's no reason why this couldn't have happened to my home town.

Hope to see you on Thursday. Bye for now.

[immigration] post reviewed, comments answered

This follows from an earlier thread which is now closed as of 15:44, Apr 24th.

Paul Kingsnorth alleges I have not answered his questions, which I quite clearly have. I like Paul's blog and he's now posted his 200th post. Congratulations! In any other circumstances, we might have got along well. Such a pity and I mean that.

Now, in the interests of fairness and so that Paul does not think I'm shirking the issue, I'll go over it all again. The rest of you just skip over this post if it's too boring. Let me go through the original post again, in short:

Entering the country

identified, assessed for quality by summary panels of local authorities and if found wanting - deported immediately, along with all members of the extended family

Reference to illegal aliens entering the country, not to anyone else.

be holding camps for assessment and these should be humane in nature

Again, illegal aliens, no one else.

entering a country should observe the adage: When in Rome, do as the Romans do

Anyone coming in - and what's wrong with that?

When they arrive, they promise to conform to the official religion, the political system and the social mores or else they don't get in.

Conform quite clearly means 'not to work to destroy'. It does not, as those who flew off the handle charge, have anything to do with Anglicanism per se or that they must support Tony Blair or whatever. This is wilfully taking the comment out of the spirit in which it is written. This post is about illegal aliens and those coming in who indulge in behaviour like race riots. That's what the post was always about.

Those now resident

primary purpose is to integrate with the society Any benefit to the immigrant which accrues from their new country is their own good fortune

And what? Any problem there?

loosely conform to those of the native inhabitants

The operative word was 'loosely', in other words, acting in a civilized manner. Again - and what?

Had to smile at the logic of one commenter who says 'there's no such thing as a British culture to conform to' and in the next breath, says: 'we don't do that over here'. Who doesn't? The non-existent Britisher? If there's no such thing as British culture, then there can be no such thing as the rule of law and order, characteristic of this country.

You can't have it both ways. Either we do do things a certain way 'over here' or we don't. If we do - then that's the culture I'm referring to.

2nd generation. - youth demonstrations - their whole extended family is under threat

This was the one which caused the trouble. It does not refer to wholesale deporting but simply what it says: "Under threat." This would be so without any words from me. If a young man had been up to something, of course the parents would be contacted by the police and of course the greater family would be involved, especially with cultures where the family is still important and the father/grandfather listened to.

street demonstrations

This, admittedly, was not explained well in the first post but later was explained in the comments and the 2nd post - it's referring to race riots, pure and simple. This might be the point on which we genuinely fall out because I do take a strong line on these.

bi-monthly, interviews

Meaning once every two months and only in the case of those who are stirring up trouble.

Misrepresentation

Nowhere was I referring to the ordinary citizen - the whole post was motivated by immigrants who come in and abuse the privilege of being here.

So bloggers' wives and friends and girlfriends have zero to do with the post. No one's referring to deporting a 2nd generation wife to Leamington Spa or whatever. This is absolute tosh and was neither stated, suggested, intimated or in any way could be construed from the post.

Other aspects of Commenters' comments which need to be addressed

Higham is a racist.

Surely, 'previous' counts for something here. Having had a Jamaican girlfriend, a Jamaican best mate from New Cross, a Serbian wife and curently a S.O. who is Muslim, I can't really see how this constitutes racism. Against which particular race is this alleged?

Higham is anti-Muslim

For goodness sake - I work for and with the Muslims every day. I've just come home from them now. I don't recall any charges of being anti-Muslim today.

These charges just don't wash. If I was some sort of White Supremacist, well maybe. But I'm not and most of the readership and all those over here know that.

Now I'm only going to take one of Paul's charges and address it because his whole behaviour in ths matter is just too tiresome for words. Paul said:

'Extreme measures were not what was being discussed'?!?!? Deporting ther children of immigrants?

Note the punctuation used. This is arguing from raw emotion, not from logic. No Paul, deporting the children of immigrants was being discussed by you and one or two others. Not by me.

Once again, look at the one above: 2nd generation. - youth demonstrations - their whole extended family is under threat and my explanatory paragraph.

Now it's my turn. I charge that you, Paul Kingsnorth and to a lesser extent others in certain places, have wilfully misconstrued a post, twisted it to your own prejudices and introduced elements or made assumptions which just weren't there.

However, unlike you, I don't give a toss about your attempted character assassination, as it is based on nothing more than bilge. Personally, I like your blog and plan to continue to visit it.

If that is 'bizarre', as you termed it, Paul, then so be it.

[north american union] immigration too

The comments have been made and show that the Americans don't actually agree themselves on whether it will happen.

Lord Nazh says the American people won't buy it and there'd be insurrection; Beach Girl says it's already underway.

It's certainly underway, as the European-wide powers are but whether it can continue to fruition is another thing. It depends how surreptitiously they can do it and how much legislation they can get past the people before the people wake up to what's happening.

Matt was the driving force behind the revelations, having collected all the material and i just read it and did the post.

I'd like the Brits to read it if possible but perhaps they're still too angry with me just now over my Immigration posts. For them, in a nutshell, the situation is:

A CFR taskforce recommended that by 2010, a North American Union be created, not as a sovereign state but in charge of:

# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system,

within the three countries. A NA Advisory Council would oversee this.

At best, it would mean a U.S. dominated continent albeit with de facto diminished U.S. powers, i.e. the power would be through the NAAC and spread over the three countries.

The Whitehouse implemented the CFR recommendations in the form of the SPPNA and it's due to start in 2010. Huge legislative changes are not necessary for this, as it is only officially a 'partnership', i.e. the constitution and sovereignty issues are sidestepped.

This makes one reflect on what the EU is doing at this end. The question for me is whether the idea of the SPPNA is to counter Europe, to counter the growing Chinese hegemony or both. Or else is it simply a stage on the road to a global confederation?

Interesting aside on the CFR by Beachgirl:

One comment on the CFR - bad stuff that. Condi was a member. When these folks get into public office, either appointed or elected, they go into an "inactive" status so that their names don't usually show up as members. These folks are the true new world order/internationalists and they "know" we are idiots. Life may well prove them wrong.

I hope Lord Nazh was right on this. His last word was:

Unless a 3rd entity comes into play, the NAU doesn't stand much of a chance, given the level of partisanship in this country.

That may be so, Lord Nazh but that's not going to stop the CFR and other clandestine bodies trying again in a different form. These people never give up with their stealth legislation, as Europe is discovering.

Footnote on the Immigration issue [below]:

It was, as stated at the end of my first post, an ongoing discussion paper. The views expressed were never fixed - they were always modifiable, also as stated. The only points this blogger felt strongly about in the whole thing is that extremism shouldn't be preached from pulpits and that when we go to another country to live, we should respect that country's institutions.

After all the comments, I still can't see what is wrong with those principles.

[oviedo] easter parade or kkk

Before we go any further, if you saw these people in the photo coming at you, what would you think? Who do you think they look like? Would you think they were benevolent, some sort of danger to you or wouldn't you think anything?

Wolfie reports, from Oviedo:

This was the first time I’d managed to visit Spain during the Easter holidays and I was particularly looking forward to seeing the Easter parades with their colourful and somewhat macabre outfits. The area surrounding the Asturian city of Oviedo is home to my wife’s ancestral family roots and for some reason I found myself having an immediate affinity to the impeccably well mannered people, the beautiful mountainous green land and wholesome rustic cuisine.

Read the whole post, look at the other photos and see what you think.

[north american union] good idea or not

There is a tendency for many people to automatically see Exxon, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Paris, by definition, as evil, whether or not they are.

For example, the Chairman of the Bilderbergers was asked whether they were nefarious kingmakers and was 'accused' of 'grooming' Blair and Broon.

He never denied it but stated that that simply made the Bilderbergers good talent spotters - a necessary trait in business. Ed Balls is one being thus currently groomed.

Look at it from their point of view. The CFR is a well-funded think-tank, committed, quite openly, to advising governments on policy. They buy the best talent who write for them, they hold meetings with heads of state, they advise.

Where's the problem? Every government has paid, un-elected advisers who … er … advise. What, would you prefer the government listened to the least talented from the internet?

That's the theory.

The difficulty with the theory is that they are following a globalist line and the only 'talent' allowed breathing space is globalist in nature. The globalists therefore rise.

Thus it is with the North American Union, now termed:

Security and Prosperity Partnership

Has a nice homely ring to it, don't you feel? In "Building a North American Community", John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe and William F. Weld, co-chairs of the task force, run their disclaimer that they have absolutely no connection with the U.S. government but are simply an advisory body, then get down to the SPP. Here's what the CFR pdf says about them:

"we are joined in an effort to make North America less vulnerable to terrorist attack"

and:

"all three countries face a historic challenge. Do they continue on the path of cooperation in promoting more secure and more prosperous American societies or do they pursue divergent and ultimately less secure and less prosperous courses?" [Intro p1]

Then follows the justification - greater terrorist threat, the fact that all NA countries are interested in oil, cross-border cooperation more secure and so on. Then comes the crunch:

# "To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation, by 2010, of the North American community, to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity."

# "It's boundaries will be defined by a common external tarrif and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people will be legal, orderly and safe."

# "A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy…" [p6]

# the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence centre

# expand NORAD into a multi-service defense command [p11]

# increase information and intelligence sharing

# develop a North American Resource Strategy

# create a North American economic space [p19]

# establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution

# increase labour mobility within North America [p26]

# expand temporary migrant worker programs

# establish a North American Advisory council to advise governments on policy [p31]

# create a North American Inter-Parliamentary group

As a result of this, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America [SPP] was set up with this aim:

The SPP is a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders – Canada and Mexico – to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation. The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

They state:

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency.

Matt, of Buckeye Thoughts, reports that the currency will be called the Amero but he admits he is light on info on its details.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies.

Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.

Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

So much for the official line. Now for the critiques. In a stirring defense of the Bush administration's plans to dismantle the U.S.A. by 2010, Michael Medved attacks “a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues, and opportunists” for suggesting the Bush/CFR/SPP plan as:

“a secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state and then to replace the good old Yankee dollar with a worthless new currency called ‘The Amero.’” He further charges that criticism of the Trans-Texas Corridor is another “delusion” that “involves the construction of a ‘Monster Highway’ some sixteen lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting the two nations on either side of the border for some nefarious but never-explained purpose.”

Jerome R. Corsey, at Human Events dot com, cites the object of Medved's ire:

At the top of the list, we will proudly place Phyllis Schlafly, who was one of the first to write extensively about the plan to integrate the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Lou Dobbs has devoted several segments of his CNN television show, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” to a discussion of the North American Union. Resulting from a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch has obtained an extensive set of documents detailing the extensive trilateral working group activity going on in the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada under SPP.

These documents add to the nearly 1,000 pages of documents I received from SPP detailing the extent to which the SPP trilateral working groups are “integrating” and “harmonizing” our administrative laws and regulations with Mexico and Canada. Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus has joined with Schlafly and me in forming a coalition opposing North American integration.

He continues:

As Christopher Booker and Richard North, co-authors of the 2003 book, “The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union,” write that Jean Monnet “knew that only by operating in the shadows, behind a cloak of obscurity could he one day realize his dream.” Architects of North American integration, such as Robert Pastor of American University, breathe new life into stealth politics when suggesting openly that a new 9/11 crisis may be just the event needed to advance his agenda for creating the “North American Community” he openly professes.

Judicial Watch has this:

The council’s recommendations to the North American “partnership” include advice on how to handle an international disease outbreak: “It is also essential that throughout a pandemic all borders and major roads remain open…” With respect to border enforcement, the council recommends that, “A reasonable grace period should be established at border crossings, during which time people lacking documents are educated about their options and allowed to pass.”

Eagle Forum has this:

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.

Matt adds:

As you can imagine, I'm completely against the idea. It would destroy the USA. We have enough of our own problems, we don't need to be adding Canada and Mexico's on top of them. Also, with illegal aliens in some small cities, the government of California has begun to drop these cities out of their control and hand them over to illegal aliens.

As a Brit, I don't feel qualified to write about the North American situation but I do about the CFR. It would need several posts to cover them and their close relations with the major organs of power in Europe and the U.S.A. but suffice to say:

"The Trilateral Commission doesn't run the world, the Council on Foreign Relations does that!"

- Winston Lord, Chief Adviser to Secretary of State, the U. S. State Department on China and President, CFR.

H/T: Matt