ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Catalonia: the litmus test

Is the globalist's neo-liberal world order actually rooted in democracy or not? What happens in Catalonia over the next three months has the potential to completely unmask the neo-liberals' dubious claims to democratic legitimacy:
One of those crises that no one saw coming is about to rear its head in a very unlikely locale: Catalonia, Spain’s richest province, where the local government has scheduled an independence referendum on October 1.  Of course, some observers – e,g, Julian Assange – did see it coming, but the current trend to find “fascists” under every bed in America may have obscured our ability to detect them where they really live – in Madrid, where the federal authorities are threatening to arrest Catalonian politicians who advocate independence.

Madrid has mobilized 4,000 police to stop the referendum. They are seizing election materials, shutting down web sites, and invading the offices of newspapers: they have threatened 700 pro-independence mayors with arrest and prosecution.

The Spanish position – upheld by the country’s Constitutional Court – is that only the federal authorities can call a referendum, and that in any case all Spanish voters, not just those resident in Catalonia, must be allowed to vote on the question of Catalonian independence. So much for the right of self-determination.... Catalonia’s bid for self-determination is an ideological litmus test, one that tells us everything we need to know about the main forces contending for power in the world. The reason is because the crisis is taking place on the terrain of Europe, in the very midst of the “free” West. Since forever and a day we have been told that the “democratic” West doesn’t commit acts of mass repression against their own people: that the right of “self-determination” is universal, and that that liberal democracy is not about to mimic the methods of, say, Slobodan Milosevic, and put down a popular uprising by force. These methods – they claim — are the exclusive province of “illiberal” regimes, like those in Russia, Belarus, and now Hungary, which has been moved into the “illiberal” camp by its refusal to allow an invasion by Middle Eastern migrants.

Except that the threats and repressive measures of “democratic” Spain have exposed this conceit as nonsense. As October 1 approaches, and Madrid prepares to crush the Catalonian revolution with brute force, the myth of the “democratic” West is being shaken to its foundations – with the growing prospect that violent repression will bring the whole dilapidated edifice down on the heads of the people, both Spaniards and Catalonians alike.
There are no shortage of good reasons to question the sensibilities and the wisdom of the Catalonian secessionists. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical that Catalonians will be better off under self-rule than Spanish rule. But all of that is irrelevant with regards to the question of whether the neo-liberal world order stands, as it claims, on a foundation of democratic legitimacy, or if that is merely a false mask for the Divine Right of Moneylenders.

Labels: , ,

174 Comments:

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 4:45 AM  

oh, come now.

it's a Founding Principle of These United States that Abstracts are Legal Tender to exchange for Concrete products.

every 'Conservative' says so.

don't you pay no never mind to that part of the Constitution defining a dollar as either a gold or silver weight.

Blogger #7139 September 19, 2017 4:46 AM  

Divine Right of Moneylenders? I like it. What a wonderful phrase. Absolutely perfect description of the neoliberal order.

Anonymous It's farther than Sicily September 19, 2017 4:52 AM  

I bet VD wished he moved to Alabama instead of Italy.

Blogger Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 4:54 AM  

Vox, pelase, read some more history, Spain is Spain because Catalonia is part of Spain.

Calling someone in Spain a fascist is the same as calling someone in USA a nazi because you disagree with them.

Have you ever thought about verifying the data the independentists use to justify their secession?

Blogger Galahad78 September 19, 2017 5:03 AM  

There are, at least, a couple of mistakes in the article:

"Catalonia, Spain’s richest province" - that's a thing of the past, thanks to 40 years of nationalist rule. Makes one wonder how we would be better in an independent Catalonia with such demostrably incompetent managers.

"Of course, some observers – e,g, Julian Assange – did see it coming" - Assange just started tweeting about this a handful of days ago. Non nationalist press says that he could be receiving public money from Catalonian separatists for this "job".

Haven't read any further, honestly.

PS: "Except that the threats and repressive measures of “democratic” Spain" - Spanish Government is merely aplying the law, badly and late in my opinion, as there is room in Spanish Constitution and Law for more strong (repressive, would say this "impartial" author) measures.

Blogger Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 5:07 AM  

Spain becomes spain after Aragon, Castilla Catalonia and the Vasque crowns decide to form a single Kingdom so they can compete against other nations.

castilla + catalonia + vasque + aragon = spain

Catalonians are spaniards by definition and have been by self rule since Franco died.

The reason why the central government is considering arresting the secesionists is because they are going against the current legality set by the constitution in Spain.

I appreciate that you guys have been to Barcelona and like the place, but you have no clue what's going on there or how the place works, why it works and why the Spaniards are sick to the bone about the constant whining of the Catalonians.

You're a man of intelect, check your sources. The level of desinformation and reality distortion in the media around the whole issue is worth of Steve Jobs.

Anonymous The best is to crush your European enimies September 19, 2017 5:08 AM  

VD knows what is best for Spain.

Blogger Shimshon September 19, 2017 5:11 AM  

You expect the alt-retard trolls, because retard. But the Spanish pro-boot stomping trolls still surprise me.

The same argument given about Catalonia (force them in because they'll be so incompetent going it alone) supports the recolonization of all of Africa, and large parts of Asia and Central and South America.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 5:12 AM  

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-moneylending/

"...and the relatively large profits to be made with virtually no risk, on the other, encouraged Jews to engage in moneylending on ever larger scales."


most amusing, of course, is that the Jewish practice of usury FAR predates the Middle Ages. Jesus whipped the moneylenders in the Temple ( remember, the Jew is expressly forbidden to lend at interest to his brother ), and all of the Jewish Law concerning usury had been codified by 500 BC at the latest.

therefore, we can presume that Usury, Moneylending and Tax Collecting have been prime activities of the Hebrew going back at least 3000 years. for why else would it have been necessary for God to forbid them to abuse their Brother in this way?

but we stupid Goyim are to believe that it was simply blind chance that Gentile Law was decreed which prohibited Gentiles from the practice whilst *requiring* Jews to make their living this way ( ie - no Gentile is permitted to compete with the Jewish moneylender, whose family has been practicing usury for some +2000 years at that point, BY LAW ).

sounds a bit too much like B'rer Rabbit Usury Law to me.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 5:13 AM  

That Raimondo article is a classical example of garbage in, garbage out. Economics data is out of date, and the qualification of Spain's sovereign debts is light-years ahead of the Catalonian debt. So much that Catalonian debt, because of the "great" efficiency of the regional government does not even qualify as junk bonds.

There is also more economic unbalance inside Catalonia proper, where the rich, urban, non-Separatist regions got milked in order to subsidize the rural, agrarian, Separatist ones.

Finally, I continue to be surprised of VD's position in this matter, as it is known that the Catalonian regional government, long in the hands of Separatists, preferred to import Muslim immigrants from Northern Africa, instead of South American ones because it was (and is) easier to Catalanize Muslims than Catholics. That does not seem very conductive to Reconquista 2.0.

Blogger Shimshon September 19, 2017 5:14 AM  

"...why the Spaniards are sick to the bone about the constant whining of the Catalonians."

Then they should happy to see them off. Or, perhaps, give them the boot. Yet they insist on the whiners not leaving. Why is that?

Blogger The Kurgan September 19, 2017 5:17 AM  

Shhhhh you're showing your ignorance

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 5:17 AM  

"Then they should happy to see them off. Or, perhaps, give them the boot. Yet they insist on the whiners not leaving. Why is that?"

Because there are not whiners enough to win a secession vote with enough margin?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 5:24 AM  

Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 4:54 AM
Vox, pelase, read some more history, Spain is Spain because Catalonia is part of Spain.



irrelevant to Vox's point. Croatia and Bosnia were integral parts of Yugoslavia. further, there were large Serb minority enclaves within Bosnia / Croat territory who did not in any way wish to secede.

the West bombed the living hell out of the Serbs protecting this supposed "Right" of self determination.


Galahad78 September 19, 2017 5:03 AM
Spanish Government is merely aplying the law


agreed. and irrelevant to the point.



Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 5:07 AM
Catalonians are spaniards by definition and have been by self rule since Franco died.



and they are now exploring the idea of NOT, by the very same 'self rule' concept you just cited.

IF
their 'Self Rule' is the justification for them being part of Spain
THEN
if they withdraw their 'Self Rule' they should be permitted to go their own way.

regardless of how stupid they are being.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 5:26 AM  

NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 5:17 AM
Because there are not whiners enough to win a secession vote with enough margin?


therefore, there is NO RISK in permitting the vote to be held.

and Spaniards just like arresting people who speak their mind.

Blogger VD September 19, 2017 5:29 AM  

I appreciate that you guys have been to Barcelona and like the place, but you have no clue what's going on there or how the place works, why it works and why the Spaniards are sick to the bone about the constant whining of the Catalonians.

You should be embarrassed by your intellectual dishonesty. Absolutely none of the points you are raising are relevant, and you are trying to have it both ways by claiming a) Spaniards are sick to the bone about the constant whining of the Catalonians, but, b) the Catalonians should not be permitted self-determination.

Nothing that you have said matters. Either a) the people of the West are permitted self-determination via democracy as the neo-liberal order claims or b) they are not.

If you support self-determination for Afghans, or Iraqis, or the British, you must support it for Americans and Spaniards as well. Freedom means the freedom to choose poorly.

Blogger VD September 19, 2017 5:31 AM  

I continue to be surprised of VD's position in this matter, as it is known that the Catalonian regional government, long in the hands of Separatists, preferred to import Muslim immigrants from Northern Africa, instead of South American ones because it was (and is) easier to Catalanize Muslims than Catholics. That does not seem very conductive to Reconquista 2.0.

Of course it is. If Catalonia goes one way and Spain goes the other, the difference will be much more clear and stark. It will be obvious to everyone that Reconquista is preferable to Submission.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 5:37 AM  

If secession allows the Catalans to kick out the gypsies & orcs that in 20 years have made Barcelona a gilded shithole, that alone will make the game worth the candle.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 5:42 AM  

"Of course it is. If Catalonia goes one way and Spain goes the other, the difference will be much more clear and stark. It will be obvious to everyone that Reconquista is preferable to Submission."

That is an argument quite valid from a theoretically point of view but, from the practical side, it reminds me too much of that saying of Lenin about omelettes, and eggs. And my family, and myself would be among the eggs.

Also, it looks like Catalonia has no right to self-determination, according to this:

"Self-determination has two aspects, internal and external. Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference. External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.

In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the 1960s was interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose. Ethnic or other distinct groups within colonies did not have a right to separate themselves from the "people" of the territory as a whole. Today, the right of groups to govern themselves is increasingly intertwined with human rights norms, in particular the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. While no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law, it is possible that such a right may be accepted in the future as an exceptional measure, if a distinct group of people is systematically denied the right to participate in the government of the state or if individuals within such a group suffer systematic and gross violations of human rights that make their participation in that state impossible."

Source: https://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/254

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 5:47 AM  

"If secession allows the Catalans to kick out the gypsies & orcs that in 20 years have made Barcelona a gilded shithole, that alone will make the game worth the candle."

Considering that the radical Separatists were behind the last shows of Tourism-phobia, wanting less paying tourists but more refugees, and the extreme left also agrees with secession, seems that situation shall worsen in case of independence...

Anonymous Yann September 19, 2017 5:48 AM  

A couple of comments about two kind of common statements.

Catalonia has been always part of Spain

Catalonia has been part of Spain/Castille for centuries. However, while there was a political union, Catalan people argue that Catalonia kept being a different nation: different habits, different social rules, different language, until today (same that happens with Basque Country). Spain uses to argue about political history, Catalans use to lean towards national identity.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of what you think it's more important: what matters is that you have been part of a political state for centuries, or does it matter that you are a different nation?

Political leaders from Catalonia are bad managers and Catalonia wouldn't make it well without Spain

Set aside Madrid (which has the advantage of the "Capital effect"). Catalonia is the wealthiest part of Spain and it traditionally gives more money to Spain that it gets back. This is a big dealbreaker for Catalan people.

However, economy hasn't evolved well in Catalonia last years.

Spain says that this is about Catalan leaders being bad managers and shows that Catalonia shouldn't be independent, Catalonia says that this is the toll to pay for independence, since the threat of watching the tanks advance through the streets of Barcelona, which is a very real one, is not exactly the best environment for business and economic growth.

Spain says that low current qualification of Catalan debt shows that independence is a wrong choice. Catalonia says that being in the edge of having military forces taking down your government is a logical cause for current low debt qualification.

This is more or less a resume of both sides.

Blogger xavier September 19, 2017 5:51 AM  

Gee It's basically 1934 fets d'octubre, now the fiscal general wants to 8ndict over 700 mayor's that'll cede places for the referendum
However the real danger is that Madrid has intervened in the Catalan tax collection authority.Catalans won't tolerate anymore Madrid meddling in the economy and will no doubt spur the Catalans to vote yes if only to rid of Madrid
There's the real litmus
o and the Moroccans aren't exactly popular never have been

Blogger Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 5:54 AM  

You should be embarrassed by your intellectual dishonesty.

And you VD are an ignorant about the Catalonian situation.

I'm telling you again, read more, you like Assange are an ignorant on this matter, you're using your "anglo" perspective on a country that is completely different historically and mentally from the "anglo" world.

Absolutely none of the points you are raising are relevant.

It is relevant when the Catalonians have invested 30 years in brainwashing a sizable part of their population to believe that Spain annexed them by force.

Reminding them how Spain came to be is not irrelevant, perhaps that will serve them as a red pill to discover that they are being lied and that they're falling into a Venezuelan communist trap.

For fuck sake people is pointing to you here that during the late 90's early 2000s Catalonia fomented importing muslims from the ME instead of south americans because the muslims didn't speak Spanish.

If Catalonia secedes (they will not, they are a German province now) Spain will stop being spain, there is no spain without Catalonians.

And you my friend with all your intellect read more.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 5:59 AM  

NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 5:47 AM
Considering that the radical Separatists were behind the last shows of Tourism-phobia, wanting less paying tourists but more refugees, and the extreme left also agrees with secession, seems that situation shall worsen in case of independence...


do you not understand English? that's what Vox just said.

IF
we stipulate that Catalonia will import Muslims willy-nilly once independent
THEN
Catalonia will quickly be forced to submit to Sharia.

and, therefore, the *rest* of Spain will have the obvious example that THEY ALL HAVE TO GO BACK rubbing them right in the face.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 19, 2017 6:00 AM  

Diversity + Proximity = War.

All of the major Western countries are actually amalgamations of several older nations. Some have gotten along better than others. The small nations are, generally, one nation, but not always. (Switzerland or Belgium, for instance.) So it's not too surprising when this crops up, especially as the EU adds pressure to not get along.

Catalonia set the ball rolling a while ago for this, and it's going to be messy. The Elites might want to fight it out, which could make things very messy. Though, from what little I can read of the situation, it seems more like a play for Power among the Catalonian Elites, at the cost of their own people.

But the points about Neo-liberal World Order are important. It has unleashed vicious forces that they thought they could contain because it furthered their own desires for Imperium. Putting terrible ideas into the minds of the local power brokers has always ended terribly.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 6:03 AM  

Fuck, that's depressing.

Anonymous Yann September 19, 2017 6:04 AM  

Another common statement.

Catalonia is importing Muslims migrants while they reject Spanish people

This is completely true, and the Muslim population in Catalonia will be a big problem in the future, with or without independence.

However, to understand the situation, you must understand that Catalan society is a bit like the Dutch one, very open-minded and very business oriented (there's a joke that says that wire was invented when two Catalans grabbed the same coin). Those similarities with Center-Europe have advantages (higher wealth and culture)... and so it has disadvantages: sadly Catalonia is making the same mistakes with regard to immigration than Center-European countries did (and do).



Blogger Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 6:08 AM  

Looking Glass wrote:Catalonia set the ball rolling a while ago for this, and it's going to be messy. The Elites might want to fight it out, which could make things very messy. Though, from what little I can read of the situation, it seems more like a play for Power among the Catalonian Elites, at the cost of their own people.

Not just that, had VD read what the separatists are saying, they want "Spain"* to generously pay them for decades to come after they become independent.

The terms in which they want to secede are so ridiculous they removed them from their websites.

*(Again it will have to be called something else because I will repeat it again, Spain is not Spain without Catalonia, there is no such things as Spaniards without the whole kingdom)

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 6:09 AM  

"Catalonia set the ball rolling a while ago for this, and it's going to be messy. The Elites might want to fight it out, which could make things very messy. Though, from what little I can read of the situation, it seems more like a play for Power among the Catalonian Elites, at the cost of their own people."

A headlong flight away from the existing legal system in order to avoid jail because of the embezzlement of trillions (american) of Euros seems a more plausible drive.

The important thing to achieve by political independence is a pet judiciary that would acquit the Pujol Ferrusola family, their hangers-on, and their front men.

Blogger Jew613 September 19, 2017 6:10 AM  

Governments have no intention of seeing their countries broken up into smaller nations. While the facade of democracy was useful in justifying their rule the elite will protect their power.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 19, 2017 6:12 AM  

No one else will appreciate this, but I do love that there's a robot that spams a Moving company link because Vox follows the Vikings, who are rivals with the Packers.

Anyway...

@Sillon Bono

I know more of the Troubles after they got started, but this reminds me a good bit more of some of the opening acts of that conflict. (Speaking of intra-nation conflicts in Europe.)


@NobodyExpects

There are a few people who, in history, have "won" at Piracy. Sadly, there's a lot more that try for it than succeed. Or secede.

Blogger Bastion Harm September 19, 2017 6:12 AM  

"Except that the threats and repressive measures of “democratic” Spain have exposed this conceit as nonsense."

It's all a pretense. The entire modern world order is a pretense, a pretense propped up by massive amounts of debt, drugs, and distraction. Now the mask is slipping off all over the world, and the ugly reality is starting to show: that all this "order" is propped up, not by "democracy", "rights", "freedom", "individualism", blah, blah, blah...but by the guns of a managerial elite who themselves are starting the realize that their mask is slipping.

It's going to get even more ugly and interesting from here...

Anonymous Yann September 19, 2017 6:14 AM  

By the way, vox, funny you haven't said anything about the campaign to take down the statue of Marion Sims, the man who developed gynaecological surgery, because he was an awful white racist supremacist that operated black slaves without anaesthesia... in a time when anaesthesia wasn't invented yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/nyregion/j-marion-sims-statue-removal.html

Blogger VD September 19, 2017 7:07 AM  

And you VD are an ignorant about the Catalonian situation. I'm telling you again, read more, you like Assange are an ignorant on this matter, you're using your "anglo" perspective on a country that is completely different historically and mentally from the "anglo" world.

You are rapidly becoming tiresome in your complete inability to understand the point. The specifics of the Catalonian situation are irrelevant, even though I am considerably less ignorant on the subject than you appear to believe.

Answer this question: do Catalonians have the right to self-determination or not?

Don't start babbling about the True Nature of Spain, the Spanish Armada, or the Spanish Inquisition. Just answer the question.

Anonymous Anonymous September 19, 2017 7:15 AM  

Perhaps supporting the legitimacy of the emergence of separate Nations has to be a strategy of the US Alt-right looking at the potential futures of the USA...

Anonymous basementhomebrewer September 19, 2017 7:18 AM  

The demands of the separatists are irrelevant to this conversation. According to the globalists they have the democratic right to self determination. They do not have the right to require Spain to pay them. They can separate and ask Spain for money but Spain is under no obligation to pay them based on a vote solely within the boarders of Catalonia. This really isn't that hard.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 19, 2017 7:18 AM  

"Have you ever thought about verifying the data the independentists use to justify their secession?"

You idiot, Sillon. It has nothing whatsoever to do with data. If they want to secede, they should be able to, period.

Blogger Shimshon September 19, 2017 7:19 AM  

GracieIronwood, I give you point #5 of the Alt-Right:


The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.


Are you, by any chance, related to Ian Ironwood?

Blogger ZhukovG September 19, 2017 7:24 AM  

People are all for self determination, until it means breaking up their empire.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 19, 2017 7:24 AM  

"Because there are not whiners enough to win a secession vote with enough margin?"

A secession vote for Catalonia where three types of people other than Catalonians are voting?

Please, tell me more, but while you're at it, remember that according to your logic your parents still own half of you.

Blogger VD September 19, 2017 7:25 AM  

People are all for self determination, until it means breaking up their empire.

But... but... what will it do to our ability to borrow?

Blogger Salt September 19, 2017 7:31 AM  

Muslim imports into Catalonia is an ancient Moorish plot. The next time, attack from the north.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 19, 2017 7:32 AM  

"It is relevant when the Catalonians have invested 30 years in brainwashing a sizable part of their population to believe that Spain annexed them by force."

Sillon, stop lying.

They're in the process of being FORCED to stay part of Spain. Whether or not they joined by force? Utterly irrelevant.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 19, 2017 7:32 AM  

I don't actually care, except for the schadenfreude of seeing all those horrible Social Justice cultists forced to abide by their own horrible catechism. As far as I'm concerned, Madrid v. Catalonia is just two Babelist skinsuits having a campy argument over the flower arrangements for their gay wedding.

A pox on both their socialist houses. The harder they both lose, the better for the West in the long run.

Anonymous Quotidian Solecism September 19, 2017 7:37 AM  

Cool. I can play Hemingway and head off to fight in Spanish Civil War 2!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 19, 2017 7:39 AM  

"As far as I'm concerned, Madrid v. Catalonia is just two Babelist skinsuits having a campy argument over the flower arrangements for their gay wedding."

Very true, but those skinsuits are going to redpill massive amounts of people, because they cannot possibly fight and maintain the narrative at the same time.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 7:40 AM  

(sigh)There will be war. I'm an old man, but I suppose "if the thing is to be done, let it be done quickly".

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 7:40 AM  

["Because there are not whiners enough to win a secession vote with enough margin?"

A secession vote for Catalonia where three types of people other than Catalonians are voting?

Please, tell me more, but while you're at it, remember that according to your logic your parents still own half of you.]

I am sorry, but I am unable to see, or recall, where I wrote anything about three types of people voting.

Anonymous SAK September 19, 2017 7:42 AM  

If the Spaniards are sick of them, why not let them go?

Anonymous Simon in London September 19, 2017 7:42 AM  

"Is the globalist's neo-liberal world order actually rooted in democracy or not?"

Definitely NOT - they call democracy "Populism" and they hate it. They redefine Democracy to mean Human Rights Technocracy with no democratic input.

Blogger Galahad78 September 19, 2017 7:42 AM  

@VD

"Answer this question: do Catalonians have the right to self-determination or not?"

According to UN definition of self-determination as a more or less sinonim for secession (former colonies, territories where human rights are not respected, etc.), they do not.

However, Catalonian citizens do practice their self-determination right (not including secession), voting on local, regional, national and European elections.

Therefore, I think a more precise question would be: "Do the Catalonians have the right to ask for even more self-determination/independence?"

I'm not rising the point that less than half of Catalonians want independence.

Blogger sykes.1 September 19, 2017 7:49 AM  

So, contrary to rumor, Franco is still alive.

Blogger Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 7:55 AM  

sykes.1 wrote:So, contrary to rumor, Franco is still alive.

Top Kek!

Blogger Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 7:56 AM  

SAK wrote:If the Spaniards are sick of them, why not let them go?

They also want reparations, take the time to read their proposed path to independence.

Blogger VD September 19, 2017 7:57 AM  

If you can't spell "synonym", you should not play global lawyer on the Internet.

No one cares what the UN definition of anything is. The question is whether the narrative of the Neo-Liberal world order's democratic legitimacy is upheld or violated here.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 7:58 AM  

On the plus side, the French invented the Crusades & they've just remembered that they have nukes.

Blogger VD September 19, 2017 7:58 AM  

They also want reparations, take the time to read their proposed path to independence.

Answer the question: do Catalonians have the right to self-determination or not?

Stop babbling about reparations or other Catalonian goals.

Blogger Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 8:02 AM  

Sillon Bono wrote:SAK wrote:If the Spaniards are sick of them, why not let them go?

They also want reparations, take the time to read their proposed path to independence.


And the Spaniards are sick of their constant whining for 30+ years, not sick of them "personally"

"Spain" is robbing us, "the Spaniards" are stealing our jobs.

Even when they are Spaniards and live in Spain.

It gets tiresome.

They are almost independent, they enjoy a very high level of self-governing, way, way more than Scotland for example.

The only thing where they do not have a direct saying is on foreign policy, defense and tax, everything else they operate themselves as if they were a separate state.

What the political families of Catalonia want is total control.

I wish them a happy revolution, and contrary to what Vox thinks I'm happy to see them go and have their happy revolution.

But alas is not going to happen, one because I do not have a saying on it, and B they want to have their cake and eat it with the rest of the country paying them the party for decades to come.

Anonymous Quotidian Solecism September 19, 2017 8:07 AM  

So for those in favor of secession, do you allow the same right to areas within Catalonia that are not pro-secession?

It has been remarked that the wealthier urban areas are not as enthusiastic about secession as the poorer rural areas.

Should those who wish to remain in Spain (who perhaps reside mainly on the plain) be allowed to create a rump-Catalonia that stays part of Spain?

Blogger Sillon Bono September 19, 2017 8:09 AM  

VD wrote:They also want reparations, take the time to read their proposed path to independence.

Answer the question: do Catalonians have the right to self-determination or not?

Stop babbling about reparations or other Catalonian goals.


Not if by doing it they are stomping on the right of others and breaking existing law, laws they agreed to.

Tell me VD where is the proof of the oppression they are being subjected to?

Should any region on any country be allowed to break the law?

Do the rest of the country have a saying in a part of it going bonkers?

What is the objective reason they have for breaking legality? That they disagree with the level of tax they pay?

I do think my taxes are to high, can I go independent of the state and stop paying taxes?

Blogger Galahad78 September 19, 2017 8:09 AM  

@Sillon Bono

"I wish them a happy revolution, and contrary to what Vox thinks I'm happy to see them go and have their happy revolution."

The problem with this is that you are leaving more than half the population of Catalonia in the hands of people who have demonstrated they can orquestrate a coup d'etat without flinching an eye if it suits their needs. And a very vindictive bunch to boot. I am more afraid of these guys than of the "repressive" Spanish government.

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 8:13 AM  

Quebec held an independence referendum in 1995. Barely lost (due to "money and the ethnic vote" according to the leader of the separatists). Scotland held an independence referendum in 2014. (lost)

Why not Catalonia?

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 8:14 AM  

Once it's done and Catalonia no longer has access to subsidies from the EU empire or Spain, the orcs will be expelled pretty quickly since they contribute nothing once the subsidies are gone.

Blogger Galahad78 September 19, 2017 8:14 AM  

@VD

"If you can't spell "synonym", you should not play global lawyer on the Internet."

I'm sure that is not the only mistake I've made, or will make, sorry for that.

"No one cares what the UN definition of anything is. The question is whether the narrative of the Neo-Liberal world order's democratic legitimacy is upheld or violated here."

When the Republic of Catalonia starts with a coup d'etat, breaking their own laws (their own, not only Spanish ones), they are no better than the "repressive" Spain. In fact, in the Catalonian Constition draft (which includes, funnily enough, lots of articles directly copied from the Spanish one), the right to secede is not included.

Does Barcelona or Tarragona have right to self-determination?

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 8:16 AM  

@Lazurus Both Scotland and Quebec held their referenda without threat of police action. This might piss people off enough to tip the scales.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 19, 2017 8:16 AM  

"And my family, and myself would be among the eggs."

Democracy. It's all about MEEEEE!

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 8:17 AM  

There is no Barcelona separate from Catalonia.

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 8:22 AM  

Quotidian Solecism wrote:Should those who wish to remain in Spain (who perhaps reside mainly on the plain) be allowed to create a rump-Catalonia that stays part of Spain?

As was said during the Quebec referendum, if Canada is divisible, Quebec is divisible.

In response to the referendum, aboriginal peoples in Quebec strongly affirmed their own right to self-determination. First Nations chiefs said that forcing their peoples to join an independent Quebec without their consent would violate international law, violating their rights to self-determination. Aboriginal groups also demanded to be full participants in any new constitutional negotiations resulting from the referendum

But, the referendum was not stopped by police seizing ballots.

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 8:23 AM  

Abyssus Invocat wrote:@Lazurus Both Scotland and Quebec held their referenda without threat of police action. This might piss people off enough to tip the scales.

So if Catalonia separates, it is Spain's fault.

Blogger Salt September 19, 2017 8:24 AM  

>Sillon

The babble is strong in this one.

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 8:28 AM  

Sillon Bono wrote:But alas is not going to happen, one because I do not have a saying on it, and B they want to have their cake and eat it with the rest of the country paying them the party for decades to come.

Same comments made in Canada in 1995....referendum still held. Police not seizing ballots.

Look at Brexit. That was an independence vote. They are still arguing about terms and conditions on the political level.

The Spanish government has had many modern examples of how to deal with these events. Instead, they choose political repression.

Dumb and lazy.

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise September 19, 2017 8:30 AM  

On the American front:

If Northern California becomes the State of Jefferson, the Feds will basically not care, because Jefferson will remain part of the union.

However, if Texas exercises its right to secede, the Feds will roll tanks. The historical, political, and economic reasons for the secession will be utterly irrelevant.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 8:32 AM  

Stéphane Dion, the author of the Canadian Act of Clarity, is quite clear about making comparisons between Catalonia and Quebec/Scotland:

["Now he can answer the question of whether Quebec and Scotland serve as a model:" My answer is that they are two exceptions. Article 2 of the Constitution [which determines the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation"] is not exceptional; the exceptional cases are Canada and the United Kingdom.]

More there (in Spanish, pls. use Goolag translate): https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/07/22/actualidad/1500733917_804383.html

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 8:33 AM  

Its no onés "fault". Its thst the Spanish government will have no one to blame except themselve if its secession by close vote.

Blogger Duke Norfolk September 19, 2017 8:34 AM  

VD wrote:No one cares what the UN definition of anything is. The question is whether the narrative of the Neo-Liberal world order's democratic legitimacy is upheld or violated here.

Yes. Holy crap it's amazing to watch as otherwise (apparently) smart people (and some not, to be sure) completely miss the point.

Reading comprehension takes a dive when conflicts of interest come into play. Every damned time (with VERY little exception).

Anonymous Jeff September 19, 2017 8:34 AM  

Quebec held an independence referendum in 1995. Barely lost (due to "money and the ethnic vote" according to the leader of the separatists). Scotland held an independence referendum in 2014. (lost)

Why not Catalonia?


Interesting these were/are all left wing nationalist movements.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 8:37 AM  

This is one of the best discussions on VP in ages.

Anonymous zebedee September 19, 2017 8:43 AM  

I support the right to self-determination of Quebecois, Scots, and Catalonians, just as I support the right to self-determination of Montrealers, Orkney and Shetland Islanders, and the people of Barcelona.

I also support the rights of their Canadian, English, and Spanish neighbours to step in and sort things out if/when things go tits up.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 19, 2017 8:43 AM  

@Johnny Mayonnaise

A Hillary Presidency probably puts Secession Vote on the 2020 Ballot in Texas. There's a reason significant factions within the Power Elites have moved in very different directions over the last decade. They know they need to keep Texas happy, and for two fairly important reasons. 1) Secession would be perfectly legal, as they're the exception. 2) The Generals would revolt and someone might get the bright idea for a coup.

Blogger Duke Norfolk September 19, 2017 8:43 AM  

As a reminder to those keep getting lost here. This is the final and real point of this post:

"But all of that is irrelevant with regards to the question of whether the neo-liberal world order stands, as it claims, on a foundation of democratic legitimacy, or if that is merely a false mask for the Divine Right of Moneylenders."

Concentrate. You can do it.

Anonymous Yann September 19, 2017 8:49 AM  

It has been remarked that the wealthier urban areas are not as enthusiastic about secession as the poorer rural areas.

Should those who wish to remain in Spain (who perhaps reside mainly on the plain) be allowed to create a rump-Catalonia that stays part of Spain?


This is quite a complicated issue. Urban areas are the ones with higher immigration, and of course, most of Spanish immigrants are against independence.

The same questions was raised regarding the Brexit, since London (where ethnic British people are a minority) was heavily pro-EU.

The same question is raised regarding main cities from Quebec, that are heavily anti-independence. Urban areas is where percentage of Quebecois population is lower.

So the most general question is: if some main urban area from any territory, usually with a high level of immigration, is against independence, should that city secede from that territory?

That's a hard question to answer. Of course, you can argue that coherence requires the city being able to secede. But then, it raises a big problem: whether people who you take in your land, and once they settle, they take the land from you. Tell British people that London is not really theirs anymore, tell Quebecois that Montreal is not theirs anymore, tell Catalan people that Barcelona is not Catalan anymore. And maybe this is what is happening, after all, how much is left from Britain in London right now beyond the landmarks and the buildings?

So the answer could be: yeap, once some urban area is immigrated enough, it's on their own, and they have the right to secede. But then any immigrant asking for the passport becomes rightfully an invader, because you have given to him the right to take you land from you. And any nation has the right to fight invaders, with violence if necessary. So... there's no easy answer to that question.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 19, 2017 8:50 AM  

@Jeff

The Right always favors Order over Emotion, even if they can get emotional. The Left Wing movements are also, with the exception of Scotland, a wealthy minority with control of a region. That wealth having a lot less to do with their economic skills than oddities of geography.

So, when things are good, the Left is all gungho on self-determination. The Right gets there when things go bad, as a prelude to eventually needing to get Ugly. They're going to rue the day the Right relearns the concept of "acquisition by conquest".

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 19, 2017 8:58 AM  

Moneyfakers

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 9:00 AM  

NobodyExpects wrote:Stéphane Dion, the author of the Canadian Act of Clarity, is quite clear about making comparisons between Catalonia and Quebec/Scotland:

OK, read the article. Dion is basically saying that a referendum is a first step in a long and difficult legal and political process. Much like what I meant.

Here is another article with Dion in it:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/spain-looks-to-canada-for-some-clarity-on-separatism/article30773887/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

"One cannot rule out the possibility of circumstances arising in a democracy that make negotiating a secession the least harmful of foreseeable solutions," Mr. Dion said in a 2003 speech in Madrid.

The upsurging Podemos party in Spain has learned from Dion.

PSC Leader Miquel Iceta describes la via canadiense as a Spanish Plan B if constitutional reform fails or is rejected by the Catalonian parliament,

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 19, 2017 9:03 AM  

"A republic, if you can keep it.". It will resolve down to the smallest economically viable, physically defensible and ethnically homogenous unit. Draw a Venn diagram of this three factors and you have the map of the 22nd century.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 9:03 AM  

Note that Yann considers Spanish people born outside Catalonia, or their descendents as "immigrants". I think the "London immigrants" that supposedly voted against Brexit are immigrants because they, or they parents, were born outside Europe.

I think a more accurate explanation about the vote difference would be between people earning their living from the private sector, and people living off the Regional government. That difference is clear among my relatives.

Blogger VD September 19, 2017 9:09 AM  

I wish them a happy revolution, and contrary to what Vox thinks I'm happy to see them go and have their happy revolution.

Fair enough. And contrary to what you think, I am not at all unaware of most of the points you have made. For me, the real question is: is it better for Catalonia to experience self-imposed disaster sooner or for all of Spain to experience EU-imposed disaster later?

Anonymous Quotidian Solecism September 19, 2017 9:11 AM  

"So the answer could be: yeap, once some urban area is immigrated enough, it's on their own, and they have the right to secede. But then any immigrant asking for the passport becomes rightfully an invader, because you have given to him the right to take you land from you."

It's not just about immigration to large cities.
Immigrants are often deliberately settled in smaller, outlying areas as well, and many native urbanites may also be against secession for reasons other than immigration (economic, mainly.)

I've traveled through Europe a bit and one thing that dawned on me (as it should have years before) is that in many cases, the cities are older than the nations or regions that they're located in. This is rare in the U.S., except on the East Coast and places like New Orleans. In Europe it's common to find ancient cities that have existed and grown amidst many changes of government and nationality.

Regarding the current topic, Barcelona dates back to Roman times, while the term Catalunya (or variations thereof) seems to date from the Middle Ages. You find people identifying more with their city than with the region (in this and other cases.) Point being is there is a basis for treating them separately and not simply acting as if the cities were just some property or outgrowth of the overall region.

On a related note, we could also discuss the issue of Catalunya Nord, the part of Catalonia that is currently in France and might end up mixed up with this business at some point.

(One of the reasons the Greeks hate the idea of independent Macedonia, even to the point of requiring them to call themselves by a complicated circumlocution like FYRM, is that they worry that Macedonians on the Greek side will get their own ideas about independence. The same issue may arise with Catalunya Nord and France.)

Anonymous basementhomebrewer September 19, 2017 9:11 AM  

Sillon Bono wrote:VD wrote:They also want reparations, take the time to read their proposed path to independence.

Answer the question: do Catalonians have the right to self-determination or not?

Stop babbling about reparations or other Catalonian goals.


Not if by doing it they are stomping on the right of others and breaking existing law, laws they agreed to.

Tell me VD where is the proof of the oppression they are being subjected to?

Should any region on any country be allowed to break the law?

Do the rest of the country have a saying in a part of it going bonkers?

What is the objective reason they have for breaking legality? That they disagree with the level of tax they pay?

I do think my taxes are to high, can I go independent of the state and stop paying taxes?


The law here is irrelevant. It was against the law for the US to separate from Britain.

Your assertion that certain laws are set in stone, never to be amended or changed is incorrect. A constitution is an agreement that lays out how a country is to be governed. If a significant portion of the population no longer wishes to be a part of that country then the constitution no longer applies to any party involved.

The question revolves around if people have a right to choose who rules them. Your opinion is clearly no.

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 9:12 AM  

Duke Norfolk wrote:s a reminder to those keep getting lost here. This is the final and real point of this post:

"But all of that is irrelevant with regards to the question of whether the neo-liberal world order stands, as it claims, on a foundation of democratic legitimacy, or if that is merely a false mask for the Divine Right of Moneylenders."



Yes, we know. And Dion's answer is yes & no, because he is a politician. Politicians rub elbows with who at parties?

The Moneylenders.

Anonymous Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor Empire September 19, 2017 9:14 AM  

"It will resolve down to the smallest economically viable, physically defensible and ethnically homogenous unit. Draw a Venn diagram of this three factors and you have the map of the 22nd century."

Analogous, maybe, to German as the Holy Roman Empire. Anyone unfamiliar with it should look up a map of the place. Insane!

Anonymous Anonymous September 19, 2017 9:15 AM  

Shimshon wrote:GracieIronwood, I give you point #5 of the Alt-Right:

The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

Are you, by any chance, related to Ian Ironwood?


No Ian, I've been working with one Elwin Ransom.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 9:15 AM  

Excuse me, Lazarus, but that article is more than a year old, and PSC -the party quoted with putting forward "The Canadian Way"- is against next month referendum, because of all the illegalities committed in the session of the regional parliament that approved the pertinent law.

Things have arrived to the point that mayors and councilors that are not pro-referendum are being exposed in social media, in the same manner as ETA victims were 20 to 30 years ago. Among those mayors, most of them are members of PSC.

And, by the way, the political arm of ETA is pro referendum, and one of the most conspicuous, unrepentant ETA terrorists, Otegui, was in Barcelona to lend support to his friends.

Blogger Chent September 19, 2017 10:00 AM  

I am a Catalan and you don't understand at all. "Nationalism" has several meanings. Catalan nationalism is the typical leftist movement of social engineering and nothing to do with Hungary nationalism, for example. Catalan nationalist is left-wing, not traditionalist, against Christianity and pro-Islam.

Catalonia has always been part of Spain and has never been independent as a country (not even when Spain didn't exist, it belonged to the kingdom of Aragon).

In 1980, Catalan nationalists, who were a minory, won the elections. Then, they started a huge program of social engineering to destroy Spain. (Social engineering? Yes, they are leftist.) They implemented a system of indoctrination in the public schools to brainwash the kids about "Catalonia is not Spain, Catalonia is better and superior". They converted all the public media (TV3, the public Catalan TV has seven channels) in a platform to destroy Spanish unity. They used public money to fund only private media and civil society organization only if they were aboard with the nationalist project.

In the last 5 years, the public Catalan TV has abandoned all appearance of impartiality and has become a way of giving constant propaganda in favor of Catalan independence (think about media's behavior in favor of Hillary during the last campaign but even more radical). They say complete lies and they invent figures that has been refuted, but only voices in favor of independence are allowed in public TV. Yes, it is a leftist feature.

As a result, many Catalan people think that the independence will be the paradise on earth. It sounds leftist, because it is. The way leftists take the white straight man as a scapegoat, Catalan nationalists take the Spanish government as a scapegoat. So Catalonia is better than Spain, but the Spanish oppress Catalan people, so Catalan people cannot express their greatness. Now, in the last sentence, replace "Catalan" with "women", "gays", "non-whites" and see how leftist it is.

Now, the Catalan government wants to bring Catalan independence. Personally, I don't oppose a referendum to decide Catalan independence, if it were like Scotland's. But not after decades of unilateral indoctrination, propaganda and lies. Not with all the public media giving constant propaganda in favor of the referendum. Not with the Catalan government being the organizer of the referendum and one of the parties, with no neutrality at all. Not with the Catalan government breaking legality, even the laws the Catalan government has issued (yes, leftists only obey the law when they want).

Not without a requirement of a minimum of votes and a good percentage of the population in favor. The independence of a country is a serious matter but the Catalan government has put the bar lower than approving any ordinary law. There is no minimum of votes and the percentage of "yes" must be 50%, so the Catalan independence can occur if only 10% of the population votes and 5% of the population votes in favor. No independence movement in the world has put the bar that low.

Blogger James September 19, 2017 10:06 AM  

The sort of hypocrisy that besets people who support "democracy" comes about because "democracy" is a horrible stupid unworkable political system. When your ideology is stupid, and untenable under pressure, then it is inevitable that the stupid persons resort to hypocrisy. What people want is the rule of law, not "democracy," where a fleeting majority of @$$-holes can destroy the society on a whim and it's impossible to hold them accountable in any way.
Another thing is, secession is like revolution: it is always technically illegal. The exceptions prove the rule. Peaceful disconnections like Czech and Slovakia involve changing the laws to make the separation legal. If the rest of Spain doesn't agree to change the laws to allow the separation to take place, the only way it can happen is "illegally." This is why it is important to keep in mind that God's Law and Natural Law trumps man's law when stuff gets serious and real.
Finally, nobody has an automatic right to be given political independence. Political independence is earned, by blood and toil and sweat and tears, and not by whining and crying and mewling about one's rights. And the cause might be advanced by gaining allies by sending forth ambassadors like Benjamin Franklin to finagle support from outside parties. In this particular case I'm firmly opposed to Catalonian independence because they don't impress me as worthy, because they will likely petition to join the EU, and I hate the EU, and if I were the rest of Spain I would not want a crappy whiny liberal state next to me that was infesting itself with Muslim terrorists.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 19, 2017 10:07 AM  

"They are almost independent, they enjoy a very high level of self-governing, way, way more than Scotland for example."

What's with Catalonia, Scotland, and Quebec all having nationalist movements run by leftists who are actually more pro-brown-immigration than the countries they're trying to secede from? And this:

"...as it is known that the Catalonian regional government, long in the hands of Separatists, preferred to import Muslim immigrants from Northern Africa, instead of South American ones because it was (and is) easier to Catalanize Muslims than Catholics."

Uh, okay then... I always thought Catalonia was supposed to be Catholic, unlike, say, Morocco. Not sure how that works. If they want immigrants who aren't Spanish-speakers, then why not Brazilians?

Or more to the point, why have immigrants at all? Just to keep up with Spain's lax immigration policy?

Blogger Ingot9455 September 19, 2017 10:16 AM  

I just think the idea of police and the military seizing ballots is hilarious. Talk about no such thing as free speech.

Blogger Chent September 19, 2017 10:24 AM  

@James

"Finally, nobody has an automatic right to be given political independence. Political independence is earned, by blood and toil and sweat and tears, and not by whining and crying and mewling about one's rights."

It is because they are leftists, that is, crybullies. They deny rights to everybody that does not think like them, while they whine about democracy and their rights and so on. “The Leftist Cries Out As He Strikes You.”

Anonymous Looking Glass September 19, 2017 10:27 AM  

@VFM #7634

Leftism, being demonic in nature, will always seek to destroy anything Good. It mostly does this by "calling Evil, "Good" & Good, "Evil" ". Since they view Christians as Evil, they will always seek to destroy them. It makes Muslims "good" because they're oppressed... or something.

But! It's not Leftism without a need to have serfs. They like slaves just fine, but what they really want is serfs. Serfs are easier because they still work for themselves and you don't have to constantly give them orders. Leftism being spawned from Middle Ages Europe explains most of this.

Anonymous c matt September 19, 2017 10:47 AM  

[Texas] Secession would be perfectly legal, as they're the exception.

Where do you get this?

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 10:48 AM  

Trump just finished promoting OmniNationalism in a speech at the UN. It should be available on C-Span.

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 10:51 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:What's with Catalonia, Scotland, and Quebec all having nationalist movements run by leftists who are actually more pro-brown-immigration than the countries they're trying to secede from?

To be fair, the Quebec nationalists were not pro-brown immigration. Their leader blamed the loss on "money and the ethnic vote".

Anonymous c matt September 19, 2017 10:55 AM  

The point seems pretty clear - either the powers that be mean what they say about self-determination, or it is all a ruse. Seems obvious: It is a ruse.

As for the "legality" of secession, that is nothing more than BS. You can secede if you can secede, and you can't if you can't. That's it. Make it too bloody to keep you, or too bloody to leave, and secession follows or not accordingly.

Blogger Chris Johns September 19, 2017 11:19 AM  

What do you think would happen in the US if and when some conservative states want to flee what America is becoming-- to essentially save themselves?

Troops would be sent in.

Blogger Lucas September 19, 2017 11:30 AM  

Sillon Bono:


[VD]: "Answer the question: do Catalonians have the right to self-determination or not?"

[Sillion]: "Not if by doing it they are stomping on the right of others"


How are they "stomping on the right of others" by wanting to be free to choose their destiny?

Anonymous Jeff September 19, 2017 11:35 AM  

Lazarus - To be fair, the Quebec nationalists were not pro-brown immigration. Their leader blamed the loss on "money and the ethnic vote".

Yes, I hear the "refugees" flooding across the Quebec border are being quietly transferred to Cornwall, Ontario.

Blogger Forge the Sky September 19, 2017 11:36 AM  

"Do the Catalan people have the right to self-determination?"

If they do, where does it end? Do the Welsh people? Can the Mormons in Utah declare themselves an independent country? Could I start a commune in Nevada and declare sovereignty? Could I, as an individual, decide who I do or do not want to be ruled by?

It seems there's a line somewhere here, but that it will always be somewhat arbitrary. It's unlikely this object-level question is Vox's actual point.

This is:

"No one cares what the UN definition of anything is. The question is whether the narrative of the Neo-Liberal world order's democratic legitimacy is upheld or violated here."

Incidents like the Catalan independence movement are not important because they are legitimate or illegitimate. That is a nonsense question, as the terms are improperly defined until done so retroactively by the victor. Rather, such incidents are important because they demonstrate the actual lay of power and rule.

@c matt got it right above: "The point seems pretty clear - either the powers that be mean what they say about self-determination, or it is all a ruse. Seems obvious: It is a ruse."

What then?

Blogger DonReynolds September 19, 2017 11:42 AM  

"Since forever and a day we have been told that the “democratic” West doesn’t commit acts of mass repression against their own people: that the right of “self-determination” is universal, and that that liberal democracy is not about to mimic the methods of, say, Slobodan Milosevic, and put down a popular uprising by force."

Who are these "liberal democracies"? Certainly not the United States. Any Southerner can tell you all about the right of a people to self-determination and the right of a people to peacefully secede from a larger union. It says so in the Declaration of Independence, surely one of the founding documents in US history. Such a "liberal democracy" would not keep a third of their own citizens captive at bayonet point. I wonder why any Southerner should be proud to be a part of a country that burned and destroyed enough of one part, one entire region of eleven states, as to compel them to remain under the Federal Union after twelve more years of martial law.

Where the Devil ARE these "liberal democracies"? Slobodan Milosevic? He was small potatoes! Let me tell you about Abraham Lincoln and the American version of "mass repression".

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 19, 2017 11:57 AM  

Two things:

i. Which side do you think the local Antifa equivalent supports?

ii. Have a look at what happened in the 6th day of October of the year 1934 in Catalonia.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 19, 2017 12:02 PM  

What would Niccolo Machiavelli say about attempted Catalonian independence from Madrid?

What would he say about anarcho-tyranny?

There's a litmus test. What would Nick say?

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 19, 2017 12:11 PM  

All talk of independence is mere nonsense as long as both the so-called "separatists" and the "Spanish nationalists" (that's really a good one) are just okrugs of the EUSSR and its divinely ruling moneylenders. We've not seen anyone in either the EUSSR-okrug whose rulers operate in Madrid or the alleged Catalonian 'patriots' advocating leaving either the EUSSR or NATO, have we? It's fake independence from a fake-country. Same as Scotland and the UK. Kim-Jong crazy is more independent than any EUSSR okrug, and even he is China's junkyard shit-zu.

Blogger Chent September 19, 2017 12:17 PM  

Only for information. The three parties that are in favor of independence:

1) PdeCAT (formerly CiU). Democratic Party of Catalonia. Kind of the Democratic Party of America. Business interests + Globalism + Corruption + Immigration + "The Pozz". It was dominant but it has lost support because their corruption (for decades, it received 3% of all public works in Catalonia). It changed its name to disguise its corrupt past. They favored Muslim immigration and discouraged South American immigration.

2) ERC (Republican Left of Catalonia). Like PdeCAT, but with less corruption and more left-wing. They are the dominant force now.

3) CUP (Candidacies of Popular Unity). Antifa. Long live the revolution! They are a minority but they need their votes, so they drive the process of independence.

As you see, this is not Viktor Orban's nationalism. It is not a coincidence that the Left says that all nationalisms are "literally Hitler" but Catalan nationalism is an example of freedom, equality and political correctness.

(Off-topic. Catalan nationalists demand the right of Catalonia to get independence from Spain but they oppose the right of the Aran Valley to get independence from Catalonia. They demand democracy but they shame anybody who is opposed to Catalan independence and deny them access to public money or public TV. Do what I say, not what I do).

Blogger Chent September 19, 2017 12:17 PM  

@NobodyExpects

As I have said above, the local antifa are in favor of the independence of Catalonia.

Anonymous dystonia September 19, 2017 12:29 PM  

> in any case all Spanish voters, not just those resident in Catalonia, must be allowed to vote on the question of Catalonian independence.

Had that been the case in Britain, I'm sure that the Scots would have been kicked out the other year. As an Englishman, I was very happy to support their bid to go away and not bother us for more money.

Blogger DonReynolds September 19, 2017 12:33 PM  

Looking Glass wrote:@Johnny Mayonnaise

A Hillary Presidency probably puts Secession Vote on the 2020 Ballot in Texas. There's a reason significant factions within the Power Elites have moved in very different directions over the last decade. They know they need to keep Texas happy, and for two fairly important reasons. 1) Secession would be perfectly legal, as they're the exception. 2) The Generals would revolt and someone might get the bright idea for a coup.



There are few things more immediately tiresome than when certain (Republic of) Texas fanatics start talking about their "right to secede" and their option to "form three or more states".

If such things ever existed when Texas was admitted to the US in 1845, they certainly disappeared when Texas was (one of the last Confederate states to be) re-admitted to the Federal Union.

"In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) the United States Supreme Court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite claims that it joined the Confederate States; the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null", under the constitution." (Wikipedia) This was exactly the view of Lincoln during the civil war, but it was repudiated by the Radical Republicans who legislated the Reconstruction for a dozen years after the war ended.

Apparently, the Texas v White decision of 1869 did not mean a hill of beans, since Texas, Georgia, Mississippi and Virginia were re-admitted to the USA the following year! If secession was null and void.....as well as unconstitutional and illegal, then why would any state need to be re-admitted to the Union?

Blogger James September 19, 2017 12:37 PM  

" Such a "liberal democracy" would not keep a third of their own citizens captive at bayonet point. I wonder why any Southerner should be proud to be a part of a country that burned and destroyed enough of one part, one entire region of eleven states, as to compel them to remain under the Federal Union after twelve more years of martial law. "

The misunderstanding is complex, but it is at least partly about the lie of "democracy." Democracy is crap, pure and simple. Also, people have a "right" to aspire to independence, but it is like our right to survive: people that don't do the hard work required to survive and who fail to get along with their neighbors don't "deserve" to survive. I respect Southerners as gallant and brave defenders of their cause, but there is no getting around the fact that their cause was one of the worst for which any human beings ever fought, as General Grant put it.

Blogger Chent September 19, 2017 12:41 PM  

@dystonia

> in any case all Spanish voters, not just those resident in Catalonia, must be allowed to vote on the question of Catalonian independence.

Had that been the case in Britain, I'm sure that the Scots would have been kicked out the other year. As an Englishman, I was very happy to support their bid to go away and not bother us for more money.


This is the feeling of many Spaniards toward Catalonia (an increasing number, in fact).

Blogger Sheila4g September 19, 2017 12:45 PM  

@ Forge the sky: "It seems there's a line somewhere here, but that it will always be somewhat arbitrary. It's unlikely this object-level question is Vox's actual point."

Mirrors my thinking. No one is disputing Sillon's points about crooked, corrupt Catalan politicians, their deliberate importation of Mohammedans, or their extortionate demands on the rest of Spain. Similarly, numerous comments also note the related can of worms: how far does the putative "right" to self-determination extend? If Texas tried to secede (it won't; Abbott is very much a cuck at heart), Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas would vehemently object. Each city is composed of primarily non-Whites and non-Texans. How small of a component qualifies as "legitimate" and deserving of genuine self-rule? At what point must the requisite transfer of populations come into play?

Ultimately, you're balancing the right of the individual with the commonweal, and those boundaries are notoriously flexible. I'm reminded of "Mere Christianity," where Lewis uses the simile of ships sailing in formation. He notes the "voyage" will only be a success if the ships do note collide and get in each other's way, if each individual vessel is seaworthy, and finally what course the fleet ought to be on - and whether each ship agrees on this common destination.

In my youth I would have unhesitatingly erred on the side of individual autonomy. Today I'm much more conscious of not merely how much I may owe my individual success or failure to my own abilities and efforts, but rather how much is due to other individuals' efforts and the institutions and society they founded that enabled me to exist and explore my potential in the first place.

These are all relevant and existential questions . . . but not applicable here, because as Vox noted, the overriding and immediate question is "whether the neo-liberal world order stands, as it claims, on a foundation of democratic legitimacy, or if that is merely a false mask . . . "

I think everyone here would agree it's a mere mask. All other points about corruption, how small a unit is viable, and where to draw the line between the individual and the group are separate issues.

Blogger DonReynolds September 19, 2017 12:47 PM  

dystonia wrote:> in any case all Spanish voters, not just those resident in Catalonia, must be allowed to vote on the question of Catalonian independence.

Had that been the case in Britain, I'm sure that the Scots would have been kicked out the other year. As an Englishman, I was very happy to support their bid to go away and not bother us for more money.


Englishmen say silly things like that whenever they know that they will not happen. But once you actually imagine giving republican independence to much of Ireland, which actually happened, things begin to change in their mind.

Are the English willing to allow the Welsh their own republic? All bets seem to be off when confronted with Welsh identity and history. Is this just a historical habit?

The Scots have had independence from England for much of their history, so it is not difficult to imagine them being independent again, but it would be hard on the British politicians and the aristocracy and the Royals.

Blogger Lance E September 19, 2017 12:57 PM  

From what I've gleaned from this thread:

Vox asserts that Spain's crackdown on Catalonian secessionists shows how little neoliberal globalists actually respect the principle of democratic self-governance, despite their claims to the contrary.

The arguments arrayed against this simple observation are:

1. The constitution says they can't secede.
2. Catalonia is taking in too many Muslim migrants.
3. The secessionists are leftists.
4. Something something national history.
5. Secession would be bad for me and my family.
6. They only want to secede because propaganda.
7. They'll want free stuff after they secede.
8. Antifa supports secession. You aren't a commie, are you?
9. My definition of nationalism is different from yours.

Is it my imagination, or do zero of these arguments address the original observation in any way? I don't think I've observed this level of cognitive dissonance play out in real time before.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 19, 2017 1:20 PM  

@Lance E.

You are correct. None of the arguments listed directly addresses the issue. That being said, the issue itself as framed is patently false. No actual independence is in play here, regardless of whether a vote is allowed or not. Liberal democracy is a sham and a con-game regardless of who administers the ritual.

The cloud people (the ones who actually rule) may well be perfectly fine with Catalonian idiots voting themselves free from the Spanish okrug to form a smaller and more easily controlled okrug on their own. None of the fundamentals will change in the least in either okrug. The importation of the Musloid and dindu army will continue in both places. If the Catalonian antifas win, the place might soon be changing its name to Al-Andalus, a move which will be supported by globalists from Hi-Fellatin Franny the Anti-pope of Pedobars to (((George Soros)) - the actual Nazi collaborator (not a fake-Nazi). (((Authors of fake history))) have long promoted the myth of the golden-age of multi-culti Al-Andalus, because it was a golden age for (((them))).

Genuine nationalism will continue to be squashed in both places, who will follow the commands of the cloud people via their criminal apparachiks in the Banksteins' Black Tower of Brussels. Catalonian and Spaniard alike will continue to be replaced by a new people as they are sucked dry by their overlords. The EUSSR-okrug of Madrid will allow the vote if their actual masters order them to. The allowance of the vote is only of interest insofar as it gives something of a tea-leaves reading on how the EUSSR's owners plan to deal with nationalist sentiment which have been rising amongst the natives.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 1:35 PM  

Johnny Mayonnaise September 19, 2017 8:30 AM
However, if Texas exercises its right to secede, the Feds will roll tanks. The historical, political, and economic reasons for the secession will be utterly irrelevant.


as will be the flagrant Federal violation of the 10th Amendment.

again.



c matt September 19, 2017 10:47 AM
Where do you get this?


even apart from the controlling authority of the 10th Amendment on this issue, Texas in particular is special because it was an independent ( and pro-slavery ) nation before it joined the US.

do you "Remember the Alamo"? the Texians weren't fighting to join the US, they fought, and succeeded, at gaining independence from Mexico. that's why there are "Six Flags Over Texas" instead of five. one of the flags is of the independent Texian nation.

i think Hawai'i is the only other state that can make an analogous claim of an overt Lawful right to Secession as opposed to a principle implied by an honest reading of the 10th.
"The resolution apologized for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and acknowledged that the United States had annexed Hawaii unlawfully."



Chris Johns September 19, 2017 11:19 AM
Troops would be sent in.


indubitably.

and it would be just as "Illegal" as the last time.



Forge the Sky September 19, 2017 11:36 AM
What then?


then the Internationalists lose their Authority, as defined by their own stated and supposed "Principles".



DonReynolds September 19, 2017 12:33 PM
If secession was null and void.....as well as unconstitutional and illegal, then why would any state need to be re-admitted to the Union?


because the Supreme Court of that day was making Anti-Constitutional and unLawful rulings willy-nilly in order to justify all of Saint Lincoln's tyranny.

for instance, by that "Legal" reasoning, West Virginia doesn't exist. it is EXPLICITLY forbidden by the Constitution to dismember a State *without the Consent* of that State. yet the LincolnLawyers did so.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 19, 2017 2:04 PM  

Lance E
Vox asserts that Spain's crackdown on Catalonian secessionists shows how little neoliberal globalists actually respect the principle of democratic self-governance, despite their claims to the contrary.

The answer is found in the term "anarcho-tyranny".

Globalists favor things that benefit them and oppose things that do not benefit them. Democratic self government in one country is therefore "good" and in some other country not so good, or even "bad", depending on how it affects globalist interests.

Gen. Kong did address this to some extent, i.e. "it doesn't matter which okrug Catalonia belongs to". So did I when I referred to Machiavelli. Vox's rhetorical question is not complicated.

Anonymous 7of9 September 19, 2017 2:30 PM  

I've heard about the secession of Texas for years but recently heard that it's not true.

The Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the US did stipulate that, as a state, Texas could divide itself into four states" is often what is quoted as the secessionist argument. But it is rather the basis for dividing itself into five states and not leaving the union, per se.

Scalia said, "If there is any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

Blogger DonReynolds September 19, 2017 2:48 PM  

((bob kek mando))

"i think Hawai'i is the only other state that can make an analogous claim of an overt Lawful right to Secession as opposed to a principle implied by an honest reading of the 10th."

Thank you for pointing out that West Virginia has always been unconstitutional and expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
Yes, Hawaii and Texas were independent nations before they became US states. But Texas was the only state admitted without first being a territory of the US. That is unique.

Strictly speaking, the California Republic existed for all of 25 days before being lost in the whirlwind of the Mexican-American war and American occupation. The "bear state republic" only included an area north of San Francisco bay and never established any civil administration.

Blogger Chent September 19, 2017 2:54 PM  

@Lance E

From what I've gleaned from this thread:

Vox asserts that Spain's crackdown on Catalonian secessionists shows how little neoliberal globalists actually respect the principle of democratic self-governance, despite their claims to the contrary.

The arguments arrayed against this simple observation are:

1. The constitution says they can't secede.
2. Catalonia is taking in too many Muslim migrants.
3. The secessionists are leftists.
4. Something something national history.
5. Secession would be bad for me and my family.
6. They only want to secede because propaganda.
7. They'll want free stuff after they secede.
8. Antifa supports secession. You aren't a commie, are you?
9. My definition of nationalism is different from yours.

Is it my imagination, or do zero of these arguments address the original observation in any way? I don't think I've observed this level of cognitive dissonance play out in real time before.


Yes. Me too, but the cognitive dissonance is yours. I am one of the responsible of 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 (to be accurate, I am a responsible of arguments of which 2, 3, 6 and 8 are a caricature and a distorsion). 2, 3, 8 and 9 were intended to show people here that "nationalism" is not the a nationalism like Trump. The name is the same, but it is only a leftist globalist movement. There were not intended to answer Vox's initial argument, but to show Vox that their support of Catalan nationalist narrative (not only in this post but in other posts) is misguided.

6 is tangentially related: Communist dictators were able to win referendums. Spanish dictator Franco won elections. So what? If you don't have neutrality, if you have all the media vomiting propaganda, these are not free elections.You can't speak about democratic self-governance in these conditions.

About Vox's initial argument, the crackdown on Catalonian seccessionists is completely justified. Every nation is entitled to protect its law. Catalonian seccesionists are breaking the law and Spain is completely justified in defending its law. The same as any other country in the world. Period

Of course, you can obtain the independence of your country by breaking the law and facing the consequences (the way USA did). But you can't whine about facing the consequences if you break the law.

Expecting a bit less of distorsion and straw man fallacies on your behalf, next time.

Blogger allyn71 September 19, 2017 2:59 PM  

@ Chent

The train is fine.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 19, 2017 3:02 PM  

The Catalonian separatists are using Nazi tactics according to Spanish foreign minister Alfonso Dastis. What kind of tactics are those?

“Referendums are a weapon of choice of dictators,” Dastis said in a television interview in New York, observing that General Francisco Franco conducted two referendums in Spain before the country returned to democracy after his death in 1975.

“These people actually are taking some Nazi attitudes because they are putting up posters with the faces of mayors who are resisting their call to participate in this charade,” Dastis said.


Referendums are tools of dictators, doxxing is a Nazi tactic, according to Dastis. If we can't trust a Spanish politician never heard of before, who can we trust?

Dastis said that the separatists are encouraging their supporters to harass their opponents as tensions rise before the date set for the referendum.

“That’s something you don’t see in a democracy,” he said.


Someone tell the Klantifa.

All of this reduces down to "Cui Bono?" for now, "Who? Whom?" later.

Blogger Chent September 19, 2017 3:03 PM  

Well, allyn71, if you say so. There is a guy who thinks like you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tInDH2FeXaM

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 3:07 PM  

good point about Cali. but Bear State never formed a civil government and never had a military numbering more than 300 men.

Hawai'i has the advantage that the US has acknowledged *and apologized* for our illegal and unlawful overthrow of the Royal family and annexation.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 19, 2017 3:08 PM  

"Thank you for pointing out that West Virginia has always been unconstitutional and expressly forbidden by the Constitution."

@DonReynolds
Never thought of it that way.

One could argue that the state is not really viable by itself, considering how poor it is.

And, if WV was still part of VA, the latter would still be a red state.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 19, 2017 3:09 PM  

And Hawaii could and likely should be independent. We can keep Pearl Harbor in the same way we still have Guantanamo.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 3:17 PM  

Chent September 19, 2017 2:54 PM
You can't speak about democratic self-governance in these conditions.



the Demos votes as the Demos votes for the reasons that the Demos chooses to vote.

only a retard asserts that the Demos 'cannot' be wrong or make mistakes.

attempting to mark out artificial exemptions to the Will of the Demos demonstrates merely that you never adhered to any supposed "principal" of Democracy in the first place.

Anonymous Battle Born(e) September 19, 2017 3:45 PM  

Re: West Virginia

There's another "battle born" state, Nevada. I wonder about its legitimacy since as with WV, the Southern states did not get to approve its admission despite the fact that they were not considered to have actually left the union, according to Union politicos.

"The Nevada Territory was short-lived, however, as its entry into full statehood in the United States was expedited in 1864. President Abraham Lincoln sought the support of an additional Northern state that would presumably vote for his re-election and help force pro-Northern ideas into new amendments to the United States Constitution, specifically the 13th Amendment, by which he proposed to abolish slavery.

Union sympathizers were so eager to gain statehood for Nevada that they rushed to send the entire state constitution by telegraph to the United States Congress before the 1864 presidential election since they did not believe that sending it by train would guarantee its arrival on time. The constitution was sent October 26–27, 1864, less than two weeks before the election on November 7. The transmission took two days; it consisted of 16,543 words and cost $4303.27. It was, at the time, the longest telegraph transmission ever made. ...

Lincoln and Congress moved quickly to approve the constitution and Nevada was officially admitted to the Union as the 36th state on October 31, 1864. It had fewer than 40,000 inhabitants when it gained statehood, far fewer than the population at statehood of any other state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_in_the_American_Civil_War

Blogger weka September 19, 2017 4:43 PM  

Because the tanks will roll. Demonstrating that neoliberal nationalism is a lie.
Again.

Blogger Chent September 19, 2017 4:51 PM  

@(((bob kek mando)))

Of course I don't believe in democracy (just I don't believe in Santa Klaus), but this is not the issue. We were talking using the retarded categories of our time.

It's not me who introduced the term "democratic self-governance" to a referendum that violates legality, without census, without fair rules of game, without neutrality of the authority that is organizing it, without any democratic control. A ridiculous thing that is completely unlike the Scottish referendum.

Blogger DonReynolds September 19, 2017 4:53 PM  

Battle Born(e)

"There's another "battle born" state, Nevada. I wonder about its legitimacy since as with WV, the Southern states did not get to approve its admission despite the fact that they were not considered to have actually left the union, according to Union politicos."

Nevada was never an issue because Nevada was never part of another state. States do not admit new states, nor is their agreement required. Congress approves new states, subject to the limitation in Article IV, Section 3.

The problem with West Virginia is that it has always been part of an existing state and was created and admitted without the agreement or approval of the state legislature (of Virginia).

Article IV, Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Blogger Daniel September 19, 2017 4:55 PM  

My grandfather was a catalonian. Awesome bussiness man, from nothing to huge. Horrible horrible father and grandfather though. Screw España and Cataluña, the españoles are germans wannabe that can only sleep siesta. And the muslim lovers catalanes will have what they deserve

Blogger James September 19, 2017 5:20 PM  

"for instance, by that "Legal" reasoning, West Virginia doesn't exist. it is EXPLICITLY forbidden by the Constitution to dismember a State *without the Consent* of that State. yet the LincolnLawyers did so."
Ah, yes, but, Virginia seceded from the Union and therefore the admission of West Virginia was not the dismembering of a State of the Union.
Your reasoning is of the sort the Confederates employed when they argued that the Union was required by the US Constitution and laws pursuant thereof to return the runaway slaves that had fled behind the Union lines. The Union officer argued that since the Confederates had seceded, the Union was not obligated to return slaves to a foreign country. The Confederates then argued that the Union denied the legitimacy of the independence of the Confederacy so therefore they must return the runaway slaves. The Union office replied that since the parties involved were obviously defining their statuses on such an ad hoc basis, he would be keeping the slaves as contraband of war and not returning them to their previous captors, er, he means, owners.

Blogger James September 19, 2017 5:33 PM  

"Thank you for pointing out that West Virginia has always been unconstitutional and expressly forbidden by the Constitution. "
So maybe if Virginia didn't want to be carved up like a Christmas ham they should have not seceded from the protection of the US Constitution, then?

Blogger James September 19, 2017 5:35 PM  

I notice that these Confederate sympathizers are very one (1) dimensional in their thinking. No wonder y'all lost the Wah Between The States. Y'all don't know how to think 4 dimensionally.

Anonymous Bukulu September 19, 2017 5:40 PM  

Sillon Bono,

"Spain is not Spain without Catalonia, there is no such things as Spaniards without the whole kingdom"

OK, this is where I figure out it's ok to stop listening to you. What on earth is the point of such a claim???

Yann,

" But then any immigrant asking for the passport becomes rightfully an invader, because you have given to him the right to take you land from you."

Hey, I think we have a winner here!

Blogger James September 19, 2017 5:43 PM  

"Article IV, Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. " Hence my suggestion that if Virginia did not want to be sliced and diced it should have thought twice about leaving the protection of the US Constitution and forming itself as part of a foreign nation hostile and dangerous to the United States. The fact of the matter is the People of West Virginia considered themselves LIBERATED from the insanity of the Confederacy.

Blogger DonReynolds September 19, 2017 5:43 PM  

James
"Ah, yes, but, Virginia seceded from the Union and therefore the admission of West Virginia was not the dismembering of a State of the Union."

Make up your mind, James.
Either secession never happened and all the states known as Confederate never left the Union and remained US states or they did not. It was the policy of the Lincoln administration that secession never took place and this was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in 1869 in the Texas v White decision. All acts of secession were declared NULL....that means they never happened and there was never a time when secession was valid....not even to admit the state of West Virginia.

But you really need to get with the program. The Lincoln administration not only insisted that Virginia was still a state, but because of the agreement of certain (but not all) of the representatives of the Virginia Assembly that were from the area (now known as West Virginia), Lincoln insisted that the Virginia Assembly APPROVED of the creation of West Virginia as a state.

In order to pursue the lie that secession never happened, Lincoln had to pretend that he was also consistent with the Constitution, which was another lie....since the Virginia Assembly never considered the request, nor did they approve.

Individual members of the Virginia Assembly do not have the authority to act on behalf of the state of Virginia. They may only act as a body, meaning that they have no ability to approve anything except as a body, legally constituted as the legislature.

Blogger Ezekiel September 19, 2017 5:45 PM  

Quotidian Solecism wrote:Cool. I can play Hemingway and head off to fight in Spanish Civil War 2!
Brigada Jefferson Davis Internacionales?

Blogger James September 19, 2017 5:53 PM  

"In order to pursue the lie that secession never happened, Lincoln had to pretend that he was also consistent with the Constitution, which was another lie....since the Virginia Assembly never considered the request, nor did they approve."

Like I tried to explain to you Confederates, it's pretty hard to make your case regarding the interpretation and application of the Constitution of the United States of America after you have SECEDED and set your face against it as a mortal enemy. So, toofa king bad if Lincoln and the Union defined you as NOT SECEDED where the Union is concerned yet FULLY SECEDED where your Confederacy was concerned. You don't get a vote no more, capisce? You're an enemy currently at war shooting at the Union now, don't you get it? Man, you guys are really really stupid!!!!

Anonymous Anonymous September 19, 2017 6:19 PM  

Vox, DO you really think democracy is the issue here? Do you think that democracy should prevail, without limit and without qualification, in all questions of governance? I think you're a subtle thinker, and, in your heart, you know better. Or, as is more likely, I am misunderstanding you. Democracy is an essential check on those who would be tyrants--as the recent election of the God King Emperor shows. But it must be limited by established law and tradition, or it becomes nothing but the tyranny of the majority. I think you might listen to: Chent wrote:I am a Catalan and you don't understand at all.

Of course if you're right, Vox, then it doesn't matter if those who agitate for Catalan independence are leftists--democracy should prevail, right? And if the majority of this country votes that "hate speech" is not covered by the First Amendment, then we just have to go along?

I really don't want to see a major European state fragment outright--as opposed to just surrendering its sovereignity piece by piece, as they have been doing. So I say in this case: to hell with democracy. Or at least small-scale democracy--let all of Spain vote on the issue.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs September 19, 2017 6:26 PM  

@Abyssus Invocat: that's a point that I've been wondering. Is not the Spanish fe(de)ral government, through it's strong-arm actions, pushing people into the independence camp? For myself, when bullied, I tend to push back.

As far as whether Catalonia should have a right to independence, I've always been of the opinion that any union ought to have a process for exit. The American civil war stands as a great example of why this should be so.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 19, 2017 6:33 PM  

James September 19, 2017 5:35 PM
I notice that these Confederate sympathizers are very one (1) dimensional in their thinking.


says the guy who's entire Legal theory boils down to "Union good, Confederacy bad", regardless how badly he has to contradict himself on an ad hoc basis.


James September 19, 2017 5:20 PM
Your reasoning is of the sort the Confederates employed when they argued that the Union was required by the US Constitution and laws pursuant thereof to return the runaway slaves that had fled behind the Union lines. The Union officer argued that since the Confederates had seceded,



i'm going to have to have a citation for this purported incident. it was the decades long Lawless Treason of the Northern states in EXACTLY this manner that drove the South to Secede in the first place.

why would any Southerner have expected the North to begin obeying the Law *after* a state of War existed between them?

this is not to say that it cannot have happened, but it sounds like more Yankee bullshit and lies to me.

Anonymous Didas Kalos September 19, 2017 6:49 PM  

Egads, someone called Catalonians 'nazis.'

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 19, 2017 7:42 PM  

Egads, someone called Catalonians 'nazis.'

Not literally. Just using Nazi methods. Like referendums and putting pictures of public figures. That stuff now makes someone Literally Hitler.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 19, 2017 7:46 PM  

Lief Erikson is now Literally Hitler, too.

Blogger James September 19, 2017 8:03 PM  

"says the guy who's entire Legal theory boils down to "Union good, Confederacy bad", regardless how badly he has to contradict himself on an ad hoc basis." I do agree with what General Grant said about you, that he respected and admired your bravery and gallantry in fighting for you cause, though he believed that your cause was one of the worst than anyone had ever fought for. Also, I'm of the opinion that the post-Reconstruction period shows that there is more than one way to skin the independence cat. Except for the actual slavery, the white South got to live more or less as they pleased for 80 some odd years, from 1876 to 1956. I am also quite sincere in my position that once you secede, you ain't got no rights, and that includes any rights regarding the Constitutionality of your secession. Once you secede, you're on your own, and you win or you lose, you swim or you sink, you make it go or you don't. Whining about how your enemy did not submit to your interpretations is not very manly, nor is it a sign of much philosophical insight. It's like how General Sherman put it, you double dog dared the Yankee bastards to go down south and take you on, and then when you got kicked in the teeth, you cry like babies about how hellish war is.

Blogger James September 19, 2017 8:05 PM  

This tiny little box together with my Gatorade soaked keyboard combine to make my typing horrendous. And my grammar, and my spelling. I apologize if I am hard to read for that reason.

Blogger James September 19, 2017 8:11 PM  

"i'm going to have to have a citation for this purported incident."
I have no citation, I'm going off of ancient memory. It may very well be as apocryphal as Washington's cherry tree. But I think it serves well as a case study in the logical conundrums and enigmas and paradoxes with which we wrestle when we contemplate the quasi-legalities of secession and revolution. I don't say the South was wrong, certainly not wrong about wanting and attempting to gain their independence. I'm just saying that such political separations require more than mere assertion of legal right. Unless you're Czech and Slovakia, expect much blood to be spilled in the attainment of your desire.

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 9:31 PM  

Sidehill Dodger wrote:But it must be limited by established law and tradition, or it becomes nothing but the tyranny of the majority.

Sidehill Dodger wrote:So I say in this case: to hell with democracy. Or at least small-scale democracy--let all of Spain vote on the issue.

Do you see? Do you see?

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 9:37 PM  

Sillon Bono wrote:*(Again it will have to be called something else because I will repeat it again, Spain is not Spain without Catalonia, there is no such things as Spaniards without the whole kingdom)

I know. How about Iberion. Very poetic.

Blogger Lazarus September 19, 2017 9:41 PM  

Sillon Bono wrote:*(Again it will have to be called something else because I will repeat it again, Spain is not Spain without Catalonia, there is no such things as Spaniards without the whole kingdom)

If Quebec left Canada, Canada would still be Canada, with Queen Elizabeth as head of state, just like before. Your statement is strictly emotional, not legal.

Anonymous Quotidian Solecism September 19, 2017 10:21 PM  

"So, toofa king bad if Lincoln and the Union defined you as NOT SECEDED where the Union is concerned yet FULLY SECEDED where your Confederacy was concerned. You don't get a vote no more, capisce?"

If the Union wanted to take a chunk of Canada and make it a new state, that would've been one thing; the CSA would've had no say in the matter.

But it tried to take a chunk of freaking Virginia ... heart of the Confederacy and a state that was actually OLDER than the United States itself (founded as a colony in 1607.) Never mind the CSA (which the U.S. didn't recognize), but Virginia itself had a say in that.

It would be as if the Confederacy had tried to hive off a piece of Ohio and attach it to Virginia to enlarge the Confederacy. You wouldn't expect the Union to go along with that.

In fact, given that the U.S. did not recognize the secession, all the more reason not to violate its own laws by trying to make a new state out of an existing state.

Anonymous Quotidian Solecism September 19, 2017 10:37 PM  

"I am also quite sincere in my position that once you secede, you ain't got no rights, and that includes any rights regarding the Constitutionality of your secession."

So much for ...

"...Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

No need to remind (I hope) that the DoI quoted above predates the U.S. Constitution.

Blogger DonReynolds September 20, 2017 12:05 AM  

Under the Articles of Confederation, which was the original form of government of this country, the Union was declared to be "perpetual". That is a fact and not an opinion.

This particular clause was repealed by ratification of the present Constitution, largely at the request of those states (not in the South) who contemplated secession several times before the civil war. Had the language been included in the Constitution, it may not have been ratified by certain states in the North. Also considered a historic fact and not an opinion of mine.

The truth is there is nothing in the present Constitution that says the Federal Union is perpetual or that secession would be illegal, unconstitutional, or unlawful....nor are there any amendments made to the Constitution that prohibit secession. That language was omitted from the Constitution when it replaced the Articles of Confederation. It was repealed, in the only way that anything is ever repealed....by being omitted by subsequent replacement legislation. This has been the normal practice for repealing provisions that no longer serve a purpose or need to be discontinued.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 20, 2017 12:28 AM  

Quotidian Solecism September 19, 2017 10:21 PM
In fact, given that the U.S. did not recognize the secession, all the more reason not to violate its own laws



James doesn't have any problem with violating Law, just like all the Yankees on the Underground Railroad didn't have a problem violating the US Constitution / Fugitive Slave Clause.

he just told you that Might Makes Right.

"I'm just saying that such political separations require more than mere assertion of legal right ... expect much blood to be spilled in the attainment of your desire. "

in the same way that James doesn't have any problem lying and making up bullshit apocryphal stories about some hapless Confederate demanding a Union general return runaway slaves.

this actually did happen quite a bit. PRIOR to the Secession of South Carolina. the Union states spent a shitload of time whining about how much it cost them to "unfairly" have to hunt down and return Fugitive Slaves ... exactly as the Fugitive Slave Clause REQUIRES them to do.

IF it were such a problem
THEN they should never have ratified a contract ( the Constitution ) saying that they would do so.

let us examine what conditions would have to be true in order for James' absurd story to be taking place:

1 - the opposing forces would have to be in negotiations of some kind

2 - the Confederate would have to be in some sort of superior position, in order to think that he could make such demands upon the Union general ( otherwise, his demand would be dismissed out of hand if, say, he were under seige and unable to break the blockade )

3 - the Union general must *also* believe himself to be in a position of strength. he's going to be debating the fine points of the Philosophy of Law and refusing the demands of the Confederates when he's on the verge of being over run?

that's just retarded. but it does get him to that elegant punchline he was so desperate to produce as some kind of kill shot about how the South didn't have any integrity.

the EXACT kind of integrity which the North had already demonstrated that it didn't have any of ...


funny how that keeps happening, that the abusers so often accuse the victims of the crimes the abuser is actually committing.

you'd actually think that he knew exactly what he was doing and that it wasn't an accident at all.

Anonymous Anonymous September 20, 2017 3:12 AM  

And never forget that the reason that the west invaded Korea and later Vietnam was to repress their right to self-determination.

Anonymous NobodyExpects September 20, 2017 6:26 AM  

I did not expect the Spanish government to grow a pair, but it did.

As of now, the referendum does not look like happening.

Blogger Alvin von Diaspar September 20, 2017 6:55 AM  

The absolute ignorance shown here by the anglo commenters is absolutely amazing, and proves yet again the enormous abyss between the world of facts and the world of meanings.

It is a very difficult to resist tendency to analyze this conflict within the classical framework of "the oppressed against the oppressor", "David against Goliath", "the slave against his owner", etc. Once we identify the Catalan separatists with the persecuted part, and the Spanish goverment with the persecutors, the premise is set and there can be no more debate.

But, might there be another side of the story? Might a case be made for Spain? The terribly slanted understanding of the situation as a re-edition of the classical story of the oppressed rebelling against the oppressor makes any deep analysis of the situation impossible.

As a Spaniard, I declare:

>> NO, Catalonia has NO right to self-determination, insofar as Spain has a right to self-determination.
>> Catalans (or rather, Catalan nationalists) have NO legal or moral right to strip 40 million Spaniards of their citizen rights in a part of their country (Catalonia).
>> Conversely, the Spanish nation has a right to self-preservation.

Anglo commeters are not aware that:
>> Catalonia enjoys a very generous status as a self-governing region.
>> The Spanish State has been terribly irresponsible in letting Catalan polititians weaponize their control on the edutation system and regional public media to foster Catalan national identity (they even termed this policty as "construcció nacional" or "national construction") and reduce / ridicule / delegitimize the Spanish sentiment.
>> They have made it virtually impossible to study IN Spanish in public schools and highschools. All street signs are in Catalan, and the regional government operates exclusively in Catalan. Catalan is de facto the only official language there, even though legally Spanish is too.
>> Catalan nationalism is an offshoot of the Spanish Leyenda Negra, which is mainly an anglo construction, portraying Spain as a dark, sinister entity incapable of being democratic, tolerant and modern.
>> Catalan nationalism is anti-Spanish while welcoming hundreds of thousands of non-European immigrants into Catalonia.
>> Catalan nationalism is starkly pro-EU.
>> Numerous Catalan nationalist organizations receive direct financial support from Soros-linked entities.

Globalism is about disarming and weakening any strong entity that may stand in its way. The destruction of the Spanish state and its decomposition in a miriad of small, irrelevant states can only benefit the EU, whose role as coordinator will become ever more necessary. Divide et impera!

What is a nation of 7 million people capable of doing against the Brussels beast? What is a bunch of tiny weak mice against Brussels' push for a European United States? The tinier the states, the weaker, the more defenseless against titanic powers such as China, the US, Russia, the better, the easier.

The only thing standing in the way of a EU support for Catalonia's push for independence are the interests of other large states such as France or Germany, which, should they support Catalonia's coup against the Spanish Constitution, would have no possible moral authority to repress any similar attemps by ANY of their regions.

Blogger James September 20, 2017 11:06 AM  

"all the more reason not to violate its own laws by trying to make a new state out of an existing state" Get this through your thick skull, when you left the Union you lost your right to have any say in how the Union interprets its laws. The Union does not care about what you think their laws say. You interpret the laws of the Union to have authorized your secession, fine, but what makes you think you get to impose that view on the rest of the Union unilaterally? The bottom line in secession is that the rest of what you're seceding from has an interest in whatever it is the secessionists are trying to take with them. Remember Fort Sumter? Well, the North had an equity interest in that property, yet, you Confederates decided that you could just up and take it away. Well, not so fast, mo-fo's. Nobody has an automatic right to independence. If you want independence, you have to negotiate for it with your neighbors, whoever the hell they are. And if your neighbors ain't jiggy widdit, you may have to fight them for it. That's the reality of Realpolitick in the real world. I happen to support Kurdish independence, but I ain't so stupid that I think that the surrounding asshole nations are just going to hand it to them on a silver platter all tied up with ribbons and bows.

Blogger James September 20, 2017 12:13 PM  

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." See, this is why you guys look so dumb to me. It does not occur to you that the right to abolish pernicious governments includes YOUR GOVERNMENT, not just our own government. When you Confederates set up your new government, you were quite stupid if you didn't consider the possibility that your existence would be considered an unacceptable threat and annoyance to the Union. The editors of the DOI were referring to a general MORAL RIGHT, not to any specific legal right to anything in particular. The Confederacy had the MORAL RIGHT in principle to seek independence, but, like I've been trying to Yank-splain to you, there is no basis for assuming that God intended to bless your endeavor and grant you the independence which you sought. And why would anybody else in the world, least of all the Yankees, look kindly on your bid for independence? You should have considered the possibility that many in the world, not only the Yankees, would set aside everything else they had going on to destroy you and your little "Confederacy." Maybe if your cause didn't include so much SLAVERY God might have looked more kindly on it and helped you win. But He didn't, and a lot of people are very glad that He allowed you to be defeated on the field of battle. The truth here is you guys are arrogantly complaining that God did not give you what you wanted. God chose to hear the prayers of the Yankees and not the Rebs in this case, and you want the Yankees to cry in their beer over it? Do you guys even hear your selves?

Blogger James September 20, 2017 12:28 PM  

"James doesn't have any problem with violating Law, just like all the Yankees on the Underground Railroad didn't have a problem violating the US Constitution / Fugitive Slave Clause.he just told you that Might Makes Right."

Really? I'm supposed to apologize for the fact that I supported and organized and funded the Underground Railroad? Because Might does not make Right? WTF? No wonder you guys lost; no wonder God took sides against you. I ask again, do you guys even hear your selves? As for the law, did you know that juries have more power than the Constitution? Juries are not bound by the Constitution in that they have the right and the power to judge the law as well as the fact. Yankee juries did indeed find the Fugitive Slave Laws to be evil and wicked and unworthy of enforcement, and they didn't give a flying frigola what the stinking Constitution said, and they had no obligation to care what the Constitution said, because they were the jury, and if they don't want to convict on the grounds of the fundamental moral principles of justice and righteousness that over-ride any human Constitution, the law and the Constitution, ironically enough, gives them that power. Which is a power to acquit, not so much to convict, contrary to law. If you don't want a jury to convict unjustly, then, the thing to do is not present the case to a jury in the first place. If the suspect is not arrested, or indicted, and the case not presented to the jury, no conviction can take place. But if all that happens and the jury does not want to convict people for helping slaves escape, well, tough stuff, Johnny Reb.

Blogger DonReynolds September 20, 2017 1:36 PM  

paulmurray wrote:And never forget that the reason that the west invaded Korea and later Vietnam was to repress their right to self-determination.

Wow! Is that what they teach in school these days?

The West never invaded South Korea or South Vietnam. Both countries were attacked and invaded by their communist neighbor to the north. The Americans in both cases were giving aid to people (a nation and government) being attacked by their communist neighbor.

In the case of South Korea, the entire country was over-run except the Pusan perimeter at the extreme end of the country.

In both cases, the communist neighbor was determined to unify the country under the communist government by destroying the government (and military) in the south.

In both cases, it was the communist aggressors who were attempting to destroy the self-determination of people who had rejected the communist system.

Blogger DonReynolds September 20, 2017 2:03 PM  

The reason there were slaves picking cotton was because Northern (and British) cloth manufacturers were eager to buy it. Had they been at all disturbed about black slaves picking cotton, they could have instructed their agents not to buy any cotton that slaves had picked. They could have bought their cotton from yeoman farmers rather than the slave plantations. They could have killed off the main reason for Negro slavery rather than be the main cause of Negro slavery.

Nobody in the South had any use for many thousands of bales of cotton, except to sell them to Yankee and British industrialists, who gave money to abolition movements. The cotton trade made certain states the wealthiest in the Union. Mississippi was the most wealthy state.

But had the anti-slavery Yankee and British buyers of cotton instructed their agents to buy no cotton picked by slaves.....it would have not required any action by the government, no tax, no confiscation of private property. All they had to do was pressure the cloth manufacturers to stop buying cotton that had been picked by slaves. The value of cotton produced by plantation slaves would have dropped to nearly zero and the yeoman farmers would have eagerly taken up the new demand, without competing with slave labor.

Southerners did not make Cotton King. They had almost no use for 500 pound bales of cotton. Yankee and British industrialists made Cotton King and they were indifferent to the fact that much of the cotton was picked by black slaves.

In the end, the slaves on the plantations would have left these shores, to be sold elsewhere. The cotton would have still be produced and picked without the slaves.

(My Dad, his two older brothers, four sisters, and their Mother picked tons of cotton in Texas and Arkansas for hire at ten cents an hour.....when they were not sharecroppers.)

Blogger James September 20, 2017 2:21 PM  

Because of the cotton gin, and the structure of Southern society, it's not a mystery why slavery came to be and grew and became indispensable as an institution. I'm not surprised that it took an all out shootin' wah to settle the issue. Too much money and vested interests were at stake to expect that many people to just walk away from their livelihood and their way of life. I'm sympathetic to the South regarding their predicament, but, when the jig is up, the jig is up.

Blogger DonReynolds September 20, 2017 2:38 PM  

Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin...a patent that was verified in 1807. He was born in Massachusetts and was a Phi Beta Kappa Yale graduate, who lived much of his life as an engineer-inventor in Connecticut.

No matter who invented the cotton gin, the device would revolutionize cotton production, just as Eli Whitney's innovation of interchangeable parts revolutionized manufacturing in general. Custom built was overwhelmed by mass production of identical parts. Skilled labor was replaced by semi-skilled and unskilled labor.

Anonymous Bukulu September 21, 2017 3:19 PM  

"NO, Catalonia has NO right to self-determination"

Thank you for being explicit and up-front about your tyranny.

Blogger James September 21, 2017 3:46 PM  

""NO, Catalonia has NO right to self-determination"
Thank you for being explicit and up-front about your tyranny. "

They have the right to want it, but nobody else is obligated to give it to them or even to care. This would be the opportunity for all of Catalonia's enemies to come out of the wood work and screw them down to the ground. Does everyone forget that the US DOI referred to "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind {which} requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Which I interpret to mean that the rest of us are under no obligation to automatically support every tom dick & harry bunch of goofballs who come along and claim they deserve to be recognized as a separate and independent nation.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts