#and his stance generally on scottish independence

[neproxrezi]

man i really hope the english government is so desperate to be transphobic it tears the united kingdom apart. let that be what this tory govt is remembered for

[grassangel]

Thoughts on GO2

Spoilers ahead

So I might just be a bit pleased with myself that I read Bad Grace, oh, 15 years ago? Which I always muddle up with Manchester Lost, but is definitely the superior fanfic because it's actually kind of likely. And given the ending of GO2? Very definitely likely that like Bad Grace, the second coming of Christ is going to be a girl and she, like Adam, will agree that Earth's quite nice actually. (And be implied to get together.)

Which will make some fans complain that Gneil has been reading fanfic on the sly, but like. that's the hallmark of good fanfic: working with the same ingredients and stirring in a similar fashion landing you a similar dish. And the Good Omens fandom is over 30 years old, there's been plenty of time to experiment with technique and ingredient combos.

And possibly also why Gneil has emphasised he can't read fanfic, because yeah, this does happen often enough that writers/authors will tread the same path as fic writers and have to prove their independent working.

Am I a bit miffed that the third act isn't Heaven, Hell and humans waging war against God? A little. But I suppose my personal second act headcanon of Heaven & Hell vs humans as the official third/final act is good too.

Anyway, I did feel the six episodes was a bit too long for what Gneil admits is pretty much a bridging season to get everyone into position for how the sequel would have started. Even if having s1: 6 episodes, s2: 6 episodes and s3: 6 episodes all lined up read like 666 is very funny. I did like that we finally got a bit more of Crowley Questioning things, Aziraphale's awful 'the poor have more chances to do good!' stance and showing, if not saying, that demons are from angelic stock. (I might have been mentally shouting 'Angelic stock!' every time I saw Crowley in his heavenly disguise before watching this season.)

There was a lot of 'Aziraphale and Crowley through history' - which yes, we all loved the cold open in s1, but I at least liked it because it was a depiction of The Arrangement and how it came about - and these bits in this season were decidedly NOT about The Arrangement. (Though again, I did like how we were shown Crowley is skeptical of this whole 'God's plan' thing.)

I would have appreciated more layering to the narrative and more parallels to Crowley and Aziraphale. Yes, we got Maggie and Nina, Gabriel and Beezlebub, but both of those pairings barely featured. Personally I'd have included Beezlebub in the Job sequence to further ram home the whole 'equal but opposite' thing. I'm surprised there wasn't a flashback to Jane Austen's heist with pointedly familiar people, and I would have rather had that than the WWII sequence, which rather lacked the opposite, but equally incompetent, heavenly snooping. Maybe have Nina and Maggie going around after Aziraphale and Crowley talking to the other shopkeepers about Nina's stance on the lights. Have a bit more demonic grumbling about Beezlebub - whether about her being a hardass trying to track Gabriel down or her not doing much since the Armagedidn't. Also, more of the fly and Jim being protective about it.

Because yeah, the last episode didn't quite feel earned. It would have felt more fitting to keep the general last 10 minutes, but like how Maggie and Nina aren't a certain thing, Aziraphale and Crowley aren't either so what is the point of the kiss? Like keep Aziraphale's notion of turning Crowley 'good' (please read that in the same way Michelle Gomez said 'good' in an extremely thick Scottish accent as Missy) and his extremely misguided belief that Heaven is good because they're heaven, but less kissing and more appealing that they're the same and humans don't need either demons or angels to do good or evil. (I personally love to hate Aziraphale being an asshole, and that was possibly the truest to the book part of the series.) (And while I do love a 'Crowley turns back into an angel' fic, I pretty much only like it when it's incidental/he does too many 'good' things/God decides to fuck around.)

No notes given on Muriel. I love her and want to be her friend.

[mortallyclearwonderland]

Star Wars Alien Species - Lurmen

The Lurmen found on the planet Mygeeto lived in groups within the natural crystalline towers that covered the surface of the planet. Despite their prosperity, the Lurmen of Mygeeto were enslaved by the Muun of the InterGalactic Banking Clan, a faction of the Confederacy of Independent Systems, when it took over Mygeeto. Mygeeto then became a planet within the Confederacy, before it came under attack from the forces of the Galactic Republic.

During the Clone Wars, a group of Lurmen escaped war in known space and colonized the planet Maridun, a world that was uncharted at the time. After being attacked by the native Amanin, they were forced to abandon their ship, which was their only way off the planet. The Lurmen's reason for this was that they would have to fight to get the ship back, the Lurmen cultural ethos being pacifist in nature.

Jedi Generals Aayla Secura and Ahsoka Tano with Ahsoka's master, Anakin Skywalker, crash landed on Maridun after their ship was heavily damaged by Separatist forces. Several clone troopers were also with them. With Skywalker badly injured, and the group having come under attack by numerous mastiff phalones, Secura, Tano and several clones arrived in the Lurmen camp. Requesting aid and healing for Skywalker, the Lurmen leader Tee Watt Kaa refused to have anything to do with the Clone Wars, or violence in general.

Watt Kaa demanded that the Jedi leave before they bring violence to his village and people. Tano, desperate for Anakin to survive, pleaded with Watt Kaa to help Skywalker. Relenting, Watt Kaa sent his son, Wag Too, to heal Skywalker. As a gesture of faith, Watt Kaa demanded that a Jedi stay behind, to prove also that Wag Too would not be kidnapped. Agreeing, Secura stayed behind. Watt Kaa also made clear that no clones and their blasters would be tolerated. As they returned to the camp, they found the camp under attack by two mastiff phalones. Wag Too, staying true to the Lurmen pacifism ethos, tied the creature up and stopped Tano from killing it. Taking Skywalker to the Lurmen camp, Wag Too began his healing process on Skywalker.

Lok Durd, General of the Confederacy, eventually came to the planet with a number of troops and announced the occupation of Maridun. Hiding Skywalker and his allies, the Lurmen refused to fight or use any form of violence against the Separatists, despite the Separatists ransacking their village. Watt Kaa and his Lurmen were informed by Durd that such searches for Republic contraband may happen again in the future. Despite his father's wishes to remain neutral, Wag Too assigns a Lurmen scout, Tub, to aid the Jedi in getting off world.

Despite having already searched the village, the Separatists returned soon after their initial visit. The Separatists, under Durd, intended to use the Lurmen's known pacifism as a means to test an experimental weapon. As well as Skywalker, Secura and two clones soldiers, Rex and Bly, Wag Too and Tub witnessed the weapon's test firing. Skywalker recognized that the next target for the Separatists would be the Lurmen. Tub, having seen this and the Separatists returning to the village, sent word to Wag Too. Tee Watt Kaa, when he heard of this, stated that there was no reason to believe that the Separatists would attack them, to his son's frustration.

The Republic forces on the planet, having stolen a Separatist shuttle, arrive at the village and inform Tee Watt Kaa that the Separatists are planning to destroy them. Watt Kaa, however, refuses to use violence to fight them off, instead stating that he and the Lurmen would rather die than resort to violence. Despite Watt Kaa refusing to allow the Lurmen to fight, the Republic built defenses out of seed pods around the outside of the Lurmen village. Despite Watt Kaa's stance, many of the Lurmen, including Wag Too, wanted to fight. After the Separatists fired their weapon, Skywalker and the Jedi raised a shield around the village, preventing the weapon from causing damage. Durd, having seen this, orders the battle droids of the Confederacy to attack. The Lurmen, still remaining without violence, watch as the Republic defends their village.

As droids fight past Skywalker and his allies, however, the Lurmen became vulnerable to attack. Wag Too, gathering those who did not believe in Watt Kaa's absolute pacifism, attacked the droids and tied them up for the Republic to destroy. The droids, having been defeated, left the village. Despite his ideals conflicting with those of his son's, Watt Kaa thanked the Jedi. Wag Too and the rest of the Lurmen did the same.

The Lurmen that emigrated to Maridun used fallen seedpods from the giant trees as shelter and home. Living near the trees proved too dangerous, as the falling pods could be deadly. Instead, the Lurmen dragged the pods into a clearing and used them as huts. They also extracted essential oils from the pods for nutrition and healing medicines.

Most Lurmen were pacifistic by nature and refused to fight or run even in the face of death. They often would hide instead of using violence. As pacifists, they carried no weapons but carried farming tools or ropes. When some Lurmen fought the Separatists, they refrained from ever destroying or killing the enemy. Their farming tools were used mostly as a leverage tool in these tactics and to provide something to tie the rope to, though sometimes they were used as a weapon for striking an enemy.

The greatest native threat to the Lurmen on Maridun were the Amani and the mastiff phalones, raptor-headed quadrupeds that hunted in groups. However, even in defeating these beasts the Lurmen attempted to remain true to their pacifist ideals, and not inflict any injury to the creatures. Instead, when cornered by a mastiff phalone, an agile Lurmen would try to unbalance the creature by tying a rope around its stout legs. For speedy movement, Lurmen could curl into a wheel-shape and roll along the ground.

The Lurmen on Mygeeto had the intelligent ability to be able to make profit and be prosperous, until the time of the invasion and occupation by the Banking Clan and, later, the Separatists.

The Lurmen were a lemuroid mammalian species, far smaller than a Human. Their bodies were covered entirely in fur, which ranged in color from a dark brown to a white-gray, though they did wear garments. The Lurmen had heads protruding perpendicular from their chest, with two large golden orange eyes, a nose and a mouth. Each Lurmen had a tail.

They stood on two legs and had two arms, with five digits on each hand and foot. They could walk either upright on their two legs, and could also use their arms and legs for faster movement. Certain Lurmen had the ability to roll themselves into a wheeled shape; this allowed them to cover distances at great speed. They may have learned this ability from the native Amani on Maridun, on which a settlement of Lurmen was established. Wag Too was one Lurmen who possessed this rolling talent.

A typical Lurmen stands at 1.0 meter or 3.4 feet tall and weighs 20 kilograms or 44 pounds.

The Lurmen were derived from concept art for lemur-like inhabitants of Mygeeto that were slated to appear in Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith, but were ultimately cut.

Lurmen age at the following stages:

1 - 12 Child

13 - 18 Young Adult

19 - 35 Adult

36 - 60 Middle Age

61 - 75 Old

Examples of Names: Tee Wat Kaa, Tub, Wag Too.

Languages: Lurmen speak Basic and have their own tribal languages, collectively called Lurmese. They write in pictographs and glyphs that convey complex ideas. The Lurmen in "Jedi Crash" and "Defenders of Peace" speak with Irish and Scottish accents.

[trevorbarre]

“I Can’t Stand My Baby” by The Rezillos - a Punk Madeleine?

For some reason best known to my subconscious, I pulled down from the rack of my singles, I Can’t Stand My Baby by the Scottish band The Rezillos, released in the Punk Autumn of 1977, and it took me back, as being somewhat emblematic of that brief period when it seemed possible that music would return to some degree of ‘authenticity’ (inverted commas are deliberately sarcastic). This was a gaudy package from an independent label (Sensible Records) by an unknown band of very basic musical ability, but with a ‘twist’ or an’angle’ which made it stand out from the very crowded field of hopefuls at that particular time. In fact, they were a bunch of no-hopers, who happened to just catch the crest of the punk wave of that summer, through a clever use of signifiers and a catchy, if hardly inspirational, song. Somehow it’s snotty negativity was in tune with the brief, mannered nihilism of that time, and they (in a later iteration, the Revillos) managed to eke out a’ career in music’ for some years after.

Older readers will no doubt find other examples of ‘pop punk’ in 1977 - The Vibrators’ ‘Baby, Baby’ also springs to mind, as do several songs by The Stranglers. But this Rezillos product (and it was a product) remains particularly redolent for me. For instance, it had a lime green cover, which was fine by the time of The Cramps a couple of years later, but which was striking in its ‘bad taste’ in 1977. It was a fashionably ‘anti-love’ song, but was clearly humorous in intent, using the negating ‘No’ as a modish highlight (as opposed to ‘Yeah, Yeah, Yeah’). (And a rather self-conscious use of  the regional word ‘radge’, which most of us softie southerners had never heard of!) Not forgetting the utterly disingenuous “This Is Uncool!!”  The ruthless cut-off at the end reminds me curiously (and rather fancifully) of the use of such studio devices in the early free improv ‘second generation’ album Teatime (1975). This was as opposed to the ‘fade out’ schema, favoured by more ‘impressionistic’ producers.

My wife (born 1961) often reminds me that ‘punk music’ was started in London by ‘Art School types’ (as was, in its turn, ‘Hippie Music’?) A 1970 album by the poet Pete Brown and his short-lived band Piblokto! (much more commercial than his Battered Ornaments project) was called Things May Come and Things My Go, But the Art School Dance Goes On Forever, a title that certainly applies to the early punk scene. I could go on about this forever, but bands like The Monochrome Set and The Television Personalities (never mind The Not Sensibles) were in many ways ‘arty clever-dicks’. And that’s before considering the ‘born before 1955′ crew, acts like Elvis Costello. The Stranglers and The Only Ones, who made their names as ‘punks’ (meta-punks, even?), but who were, in fact anything but.

The B-side of our Rezillos track was Lennon/McCartney’s I Wanna Be Your Man (immortalised by The Rolling Stones), so there was a ‘knowing’ aspect to these Art Schoolers (like the Pistol’s covering Small Faces and Who numbers). The wonderful sleeves of the 45s of this time of 1977 were often a backwards (retromanic?) reference to 50s and 60s singles and albums (Costello’s 1980 Get Happy!!! being only the most obvious). ‘Punk’ was never a ‘pure’ creature: Rotten’s ‘I Hate Pink Floyd’ stance was constantly being diluted by the very artists who were supposed to be celebrating this ‘movement’. (Even as early as February 1977, Television’s Marquee Moon was seen as ‘betraying’ Punk, with it’s guitar solos and whatnot.) Punk’s ‘Year Zero’ was clearly a load of contradictory nonsense right from the get-go. By Magazine’s 1978 sophomore record, Secondhand Daylight, Pink Floyd were a genuine reference point.

Thankfully. ‘Post Punk’ gave us some genuinely challenging music, from Pere Ubu and Public Image onwards, after a year or so of mostly the opposite. I Can’t Stand My Baby is a brief reminder of what we hoped Punk could be, short, sharp and maybe even a little bit shocking.

[slimyratbastard]

An update on UK politics, for foreigners and anyone else with nothing better to do

Well, the UK is going back into general election mode, with the vote scheduled for 12th December. Anyone who tries to tell you how it will all turn out is, obviously, full of shit. At the moment, the polls favour the Conservatives, but if the next few weeks campaigning gets even a fraction as chaotic as seems likely, that could change very, very easily.

That said, there are a few observations worth making at the outset. The first is that an upset on the scale of the last snap election in 2017, where Theresa May went from a massive lead at the outset to losing her majority, seems unlikely. On that occasion the Conservatives found themselves contending with two terrorist attacks during the campaign, a disastrous manifesto, and a leader with the charisma of a cardboard cut-out daubed with cowshit. None of those factors is likely to apply in the coming campaign.

Meanwhile, the fact that, after two and a half years of the Tory Party offering a steady diet of chaos, infighting, and frequent, catastrophic failure, the Labour Party is still trailing behind in the polls, should caution one against expecting major gains for Her Majesty's Opposition. To do him justice, Jeremy Corbyn, while horrendously ill-suited to leading a major political party, is a strong campaigner when he can talk about the causes he's passionate about. Unfortunate, then, that this election is likely to focus almost entirely on Brexit, a subject about which he quite plainly doesn't give a single fuck, except to wish that it would just go away. I suspect that the best case scenario for Labour is that they'll be able to hold onto the gains they made in 2017.

If anyone is going to ruin Boris Johnson's day, it's likely to be the smaller parties. The Liberal Democrats have done a good job of positioning themselves as the standard bearers for remaining in the European Union, and stand a good chance of picking up seats in remain-voting constituencies that are turned off by the Conservatives' ever-harder take on Brexit, and unconvinced by Labour's confused and incoherent position. In Scotland, the Conservatives have lost their best electoral asset now that Ruth Davidson, the former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, has stood down. The whole sorry Brexit mess has given a fresh impetus to the Scottish Nationalists quest for independence, and it will be surprising if they don't take seats from the Tories north of the border.

If I were to guess, I'd say that the most likely results are either a slim Conservative majority, or a hung Parliament (and I would certainly prefer the latter). If there's one factor that could swing it either way, it's Nigel Farage's Brexit Party. If they decide to run a full, nationwide election campaign, it's likely that they'll end up taking more votes from the Conservatives than the other parties, which could mean the difference between victory and defeat in some key constituencies. If they take a more co-operative approach to the Tories and focus their campaigning in leave-supporting Labour seats in the north of England where Farage's populist anti-immigrant stance polls well, they could help Boris Johnson get over the line and win a majority. Ultimately, it depends on what matters more to Farage, Brexit or his own ego. It could go either way.

It's going to be an interesting few weeks.

[gravitascivics]

ARE THERE LYING EYES?

As the last posting leaves the reader, it suggests that one can pick up much of the political theorizing among colonial Americans through the tensions between Enlightenment advocates – some being Deists – and religiously influenced colonists.  A lot of that tension will lead to ideas concerning tolerance.  

And further, tensions within the religious faction arose between the New Lights or as known in Europe, Pietists – those affected by the Awakening – and Old Lights who tended to disparage Awakeners.  This last group tended to be supporters of established churches and their ministers.  But to get to tolerance, one needs to take a developmental view of how constitutional ideals got started.

         One finds that such views result from a dialectic struggle.  While this overall contention was being expressed among Americans, several institutional developments occurred.  Probably the most prominent was the upstart of various higher education schools in many of the colonies.  This blog has already reported on the first two of these efforts, those of Harvard and Yale.

Other colonies followed suit, but what seems a bit ironic, as with Harvard and Yale, religiously motivated people played central roles in getting things started.  For example, Rhode Island College, which became Brown University, Queen’s College in New Jersey, which became Rutgers, Dartmouth in New Hampshire, College of Philadelphia, which became the University of Pennsylvania, and King’s College, which became Columbia University in New York all were started through the influence of the Awakening.

Allen Guelzo comments on this irony:

That the Awakeners were interested in founding colleges at all may seem unusual, given the cold shoulder that Harvard and Yale turned to the Great Awakening … [The belief was that] Enlightenment’s glorification of reason and nature was all well and good, argued the Pietists, but only if one did not forget the limits placed upon the operation of the reason by the countervailing power of the other faculties, and especially the will … This was not necessarily an anti-intellectual stance.  It was, in fact, little more than an updating of scholastic-style voluntarism, and it was shared, without any dimming of intellectual energy … by John Wesley, and by Jonathan Edwards.[1]

In that, various personal stories can be discovered.  For example, the story of Thomas Clap illustrates how eventful the twist and turns of these schools were and how they survived low enrollments, rambunctious student bodies, and less then competent administrators.[2]  All of them survived and all would drift toward Enlightened views, especially as science became more prominent.

         As backdrop to these developments on this side of the Atlantic, events in Britain would also have meaningful effects not only on how higher education curriculum would turn, but also on the substantive political ideals the founding generation would generate.  And a lot of this evolving had to do with the politics of religion in Britain.  

The Crown found it beneficial to close campuses of Cambridge and Oxford in England to all except Anglicans.  This proved to be a windfall for Scottish schools.  It was there that the Enlightenment would have its greatest impact that would extend to America with its influence on the founders of the US.

Of specific effect, the work of various Enlightened thinkers tackled the philosophic problems that the Enlightenment bestowed on the intellectual development of Western thought.  And one train of thought worth mentioning here involves John Locke (often referred to in this blog).  Of interest is that philosopher’s thoughts on epistemology or questions regarding how people know what they know.  Specifically, his claim as to the inability of humans to know directly the objects they are aware of; they only know their ideas of those objects, became problematic.

While one persuaded by this view could rely on those perceptions reflecting reality, this disconnect bothered religious thinkers such as Bishop Berkeley who argued that Locke had no evidence for his claim.  But, in addition, a whole school of thought, the school of common sense, led by such thinkers as Francis Hutcheson and Thomas Reid, argued that all that constructed distinction between what is perceived and what is known was essentially nonsense.  

They argued that people know things because they perceive them. They basically argued that Locke was being unrealistic and that he rendered the mind as being some passive organ (his tabula rasa).  That is, the mind does not only take in ideas over factual perceptions passively, but configures what it perceives conceptually, inductively, and deductively.

It forms from bare factual explanations, relationships, stories, claims of importance, and other judgmental or semi-judgmental opinions. One does not see from a scene of New York City a bunch of buildings, but a sense of human progress, ambition, fortitude, challenge, and human folly or degradation.  When one sees a painting, to use a Guelzo’s example, one does not “see” oils and canvass.

And this leads to a sense of morality, what is good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly.  And this referred to qualities beyond the individual and his/her perceptions. Instead, a moral sense was universal among humans.  And this seemed to attack Locke’s claims that one could not have any assurance of what was perceived.  This Lockean claim was further strengthened by the arguments of David Hume.  He reasoned that one could not arrive at any conclusions – such as concluding a billiard ball one saw hit by another ball moved as a consequence of the collision – from perceptions.  To this, Thomas Reid responded.

Reid argued for the strength that common agreement had in formulating one’s views and conclusions.  Basically, he argued that it was the height of idiocy to not accept what one sees as being what is true.  As Guelzo describes Reid’s point,

 Without trying to explain how it worked or implying that one could know how it worked, the fact that there was “common sense” which attested to the real existence of objects outside the mind was so elemental and reflexive a fact of consciousness that denying it, questioning it or being cleverly philosophical about it, was absurd.[3]

 In one respect, this “common sense” further strengthened a Locke initiative in that it supported what was evolving from Locke’s thoughts, scientific study – in that one could rely on perceived observations – while at the same time picking up on scholastic bias for reasoned arguments.  

The former aligned with the ideals of natural rights, while the latter could be attached to natural law.  And this combination will be appealing to such politicians and Enlightened thinkers as Thomas Jefferson.[4]  This notion of “common sense” among all led to such conclusions as the “self-evident” quality human rights possessed.  For example, all do not agree to what is beautiful, but all agree that beauty exists.

[1] Allen C. Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I – transcript books – (Chantilly, VA:  The Teaching Company/The Great Courses, 2005), 61-62.  The factual claims of this posting based on Guelzo’s lecture.

[2] Another story of note is what happened to Aaron Burr’s father, Aaron Burr, Sr. and mother, Esther Edwards Burr (daughter of Jonathan Edwards), as their fate intertwined with the early days of Princeton University.

[3] Allen C. Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I – transcript books – (Chantilly, VA:  The Teaching Company/The Great Courses, 2005), 68.

[4] Gary Wills, Inventing America:  Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1978/2018).

[typhonatemybaby]

I stumbled across this article on twitter the other day and IMO it represents simultaneously the worst and most socially positive elements of what a lot of people think about when they think about scottish independence. Im from Scotland and support independence in the current climate, but for a variety of reasons, some of which are identical to the standard pro-indy platform, some wildly divergent. It starts off well enough, by poking a few holes in Ruth Davidsons generally tepid takes on the broad campaign for independence as well as highlighting her hypocrisy as regards her take on nationalism in general ( cue timely reference to the infamous tank photograph). After this the author takes the tack of using this as a platform for arguing for: “ ...the independence movement to challenge her "thinking" (quote marks very much needed) by giving stronger and more coherent meaning to the philosophy of our cause.“

Which in general is a program i support, especially given that the nature of the mainstream lines of the debate have sort of solidified into entrenched positions since indyref 1.0. However Im broadly speaking an anarchist so any chance of my actual views getting into the rhetoric of the independence debate is pretty slim. Regardless we crack on and Mr Mcalpine immediately starts talking about academic theories and conceptions of nationalism, which i would agree is a fair point to start. However this is also where i start to run int trouble with this article. Instead of using the theories he has outlined to help approach the matter materialistically and even state which of these he believes is closer to accuracy ( though to be fair he does do this later), McAlpine immediately simply lays them out as an offering and moves on to his first major calumny. I find it fitting that he does this after making the error that all online anarchos love to point out : “ oooooh you assumed the nation state is a good model at ALL. you FOOL” etc etc

So what is this first major issue? well:

“Because here's the thing – there is more or less no person in the world who is not wholly reliant on and deeply committed to the nation state system. I get deeply irritated by the 'citizen of the world' crowd who, hypocritically, expect someone else's nation state to provide the police to protect their MacBooks as they check into a hotel in someone else's country using someone else's roads paid for by someone else's nation state raising taxes on their population.

If you are a fascist, an anarcho-syndicalist, a theocrat or a believer in undemocratic kingdoms or empires, or of a single world government, then you have taken a legitimate position from which to attack nationalism. Everyone else is some kind of nationalist.”

Fuck me, bad post op.

First of all this is, for someone who just ragged on Ruth Davidson for not knowing about academic theories of nationalism in human society, this guy displays a total absence of knowledge when it comes to literally any of the ideological positions he’s just listed. Secondly, given the way this guy seems to conceive of nationalism i find the ( I assume rhetorical) claim he makes that  “everyone is some kind of nationalist” to be somewhat farcical. Some people deliberately extricate themselves form this mode of thinking. some never fall into it at all and others merely drift away. Its either that or he is going for the Orwell argument, in which case, buddy, me and my  pal Max have some news for you. 

On the other hand if McAlpine is making the argument that “ we all live within political systems pervaded by the importance of the nation-state” or something along those lines, then frankly that’s one hell of a circular point seeing as he proselytizes the idea of Nation States as inherently legitimate, or at least seems to. If this latter argument is being made here then its not wildly different to that time Louise Mensch got up of Have I Got News For You and complained that anti capitalists protesters were idiots because they’d probably consumed capitalist goods. Not least i find this disgusting because of his insistence on the conception of “our roads” as if humans can cut out cubes of the air and trademark them. A criticism of tourist-colonialism is very justified, i agree, and the idea that the colonized nation, repressed by the colonizer is legitimate in resistance is one that many would say carries some water, but here he turns it utterly on its head, not only by arguing that Scotland is in any way similar to being an imperial colony in any significant degree, but also by turning this argument into a complete unconscious capitulation to the essentialism of the republic. Mcalpine worships the citizen, and now because of it anyone can build upon that ideological failure to wring up whatever evolved form of essentialism they may choose. It is from this that the whole failure of much of the self described civic nationalists springs. Their ideology has replaced the old totem with a new one and now the imagined republic forms what they strive for. It will of course never exist, vote or no. I happily voted Yes once and will do so again, but while i described myself as a civic nationalist last time i don’t any longer. I dont think this article really vindicates why anyone should

In that it is treated differently within the UK political landscape by the powers that be it is more akin to a collection of low priority constituencies, safe seats that neither side is compelled to compete over and thus will not invest in. The vestiges of serious English/Scottish violent tension or the post 1707 internal repression are not actually materially important any more. Scots aren’t being brutally oppressed in that way any more. In the Current material conditions it is about austerity over the course of decades, the aftermath of industrial collapse and regrowth, and cutting away from the worst of liberalism and neoliberalism, into a situation where things are merely bad and not catastrophic.

its for this reason that im skeptical of the premise of his next section: that civic, cultural and ethnic nationalism are fundamentally different. Different they are, but not inextricably so. in fact i believe they are merely faces of each other, and because the idea of nationalism does not allow for people to actually escape that loop, are suited to merely melt into each other as the climate requires. If you cant imagine the “ someone elses roads” rhetoric coming out of the mouth of certain other UK political figures mouths. Mcalpine attempts to escape this by stating that he sees the shades of grey and the nuances inherent in the problems of all these theories, but i would argue that the three distinct ideas of nationalism he has outlined do not form separate trends or tendencies, but that they chase each other in a spiral. I believe they have a dialectical relationship. 

(Getting wildly off the rails I would liken it to Clausewitz’s “ fascinating trinity”, where three separate components of a concept that at first glance each seem the essential component, each rely on each other and by their own presence force the other aspects to relate to them.* The actual philosophical difference between civic and ethnic nationalism is particularly tenuous for reasons which i should not have to elucidate. These are not separate categories. They are elements in dialectical conversation with each other and each exists in the nationalist ideal, if you look in the right places. Creating a theory of the modern nation state isn't like picking different pokemon at the start of the game)

*I am aware of course that this is obscure as hell. feel free to ignore it Anyway getting back on track: I think that by this point another key error in the Civic nationalist platform should be clear by now: the notion that civic nationalism stands somehow as a desperately radical stance against globalization and modern consumerism, or even that it would materially represent a desperately different way of being from such things. Neither of these things are really expressly mentioned in this article as it isn't really the place for that massive discussion yet i personally get the feeling that we should briefly discuss them nonetheless. The Civic nationalist tendency amongst the main camp of the Independence movement in Scotland frequently effectively offers Scottish nationalism/independence as a bulwark, both materially and ideologically against “ the bad capitalism” presuming their own to be so much better. Again this isn't mentioned in McAlpines article, so its not like its at all his fault but i feel the need, as someone in favor of Independence and as an anti-capitalist who takes a Marxian analysis of capitalist economics to reiterate that this position is blatant nonsense

Anyway Mcalpine then knocks it right out of the park with the inclusion of a joke YouTube video, which to be fair takes a nice swing at BBC British nationalist propaganda, which is to be fair pretty horrendous. This section is a little edgy but whatever. He then moves on to complain that Sturgeon has had to avoid the word “ nationalist” in her rhetoric. Frankly i normally have no problem with the idea of nationalism being unpopular, but his point that it is being made unusable by the deliberate propagandist manipulation of the silent nationalism of the British political landscape (lmao) is an accurate one. Nationalism isn't what those people are arguing against. they are arguing for their own nationalism and their own power. Next up, after this worthwhile insight is a quite positive point, the heart of which i understand but at same time cannot stand alongside: The fixed idea of the citizen and citizenry is again raised. Difference and the validity of such is celebrated. All is Utopian. All is then sacrificed. the preponderance of the nation state over the citizen immediately re-erupts onto the scene, as the citizens become components of the national project. Which is inevitably going to cave to bog standard capitalist exploitation no matter how Utopian you make your Tomorrow-Scotland. Surplus Value is still Surplus Value regardless who the extractor is. McAlpine is not willing to accept this however and states:

“ This means that I believe nationalism is a function of people – that the nation state is explicitly a contract between each of its citizens, and not a contract between individuals and 'the state'. “ ...to which i can only respond with “ yeah right”. 

He reiterates his imagined distinction between movement for a nation of citizens and affinity groups and relations, and old school patriotism and rightly criticizes it as a subservience to power, yet fails to reflect on such a notion within a nation.  The rest of this article i cant really bring myself to criticize because it is genuinely clearly rather heartfelt in a way which i too have felt and sympathize with:  snipe though i may I still sympathize with the general platform and the desires behind it: for a better way of living. Further the general premise of the article is made into a rather useful request at the end, even if i still feel that the author failed to live up to it: 

“ If only we could show more courage in defining what our project is about at a fundamental level...” 

Well to the author i say this: if that project is independence please count me as, though a critic, an ally. But if it is nationalism then i would encourage you to see which spooks and phantasms still haunt you and to see which wheels turn in your head.

[somewhatvellum]

Basic UK Party Run-down

So I’m not going to get into policies or anything - those are easily googleable; this is going to be more a brief recent history, current standing, and general attitudes.

Whilst we generally have two “main” parties, there are six with political influence in parliament.

I’ll start with the most influencial and go down like that.

The Conservatives (nickname = the Tories/Tory party)

These are our traditional right-wing party. They are actually fairly similar to the US Democrats (which honestly says so much about the state of US politics). Pro-business and privatisation. The main controversy they’re facing is their privatisation of the NHS, which is leading to less funding, longer wait times, stretched staffing, and generally fewer resources. Often portrayed as the party that is realistic with money, but fairly brutal when it comes to the lives of the disabled and anyone under the age of 30. Despite their reputation for being very pro-white-upper middle class-businessman, they are the only party who has ever contributed a female prime minister to UK history - and they’ve done it twice. The only other main parties that have recently had a female head are the Greens and the SNP.

Labour

They are the main opposition party, and are generally centrist. For over a century, political power has alternated between the Tories and Labour. They were founded as the working-man’s party - very pro-union, big on taxes and nationalisation. In the 90s, a dude called Tony Blair (the guy responsible for our involvement in the Iraq war) transformed the party to have a much more right-wing stance. Critics fondly refer to this part of the party as “Tory-lite”. The current leader is Jeremy Corbyn, who is attempting to drag the party back towards the centre, though many of his party members dislike him, believing him to be ineffectual. This has caused a massive split in the party, and it is currently very weak, with there having been two attempts to oust Corbyn by his own party members.

The Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems)

The Lib-Dems are also centrist, and are the third “main” party (until recently, they were the only party other than the main two to have much political power). In 2010, there needed to be a coalition government, and the Lib Dems decided to go with the Tories, which pissed off a lot of their voters as most of them are fairly anti-tory. They had gained a lot of votes because they went for young people by promising to not raise student fees, and when the fees were tripled, many of their voters were incredibly angry, believing the party to be abandoning their morals to have a good standing with the Tories. When the Tories were voted in again in 2015 (this time alone), it was revealed that the Lib Dems had actually been doing all sorts of damage control, but people still hate them for their betrayal. In a fair few constituencies, they are the Tories’ main competition.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP)

As you can probably tell from the name, UKIP’s big Thing is British independence (and being anti-EU). It is basically because of them that the Brexit referendum was called at all (and all other main parties were officially pro-remain). They receive a lot of flack as they are anti-immigration, and many of their members, counsellors, and MPs have been accused of extreme racism, xenophobia, colourism, Islamophobia, and homophobia. They are the only main party that are more right-wing than the Tories. If you’ve heard of Nigel Farage - he’s the guy that was in charge of UKIP during the last election and the Brexit vote.

The Green Party

In England, the Greens are the only left-wing party. Whilst their name highlights their pro-environment stance, their interests and policies do span the full spectrum (unlike some *cough*UKIP*cough*). They are anti-nuclear weapons, and want to stop funding Trident, which is the UK’s main nuke, believing it to be a waste of money, mainly because it’ll never be used, doesn’t work as a deterrent, and is old tech by now anyway. They get given no airtime by the media, and as such don’t have as many members, though they do hold one seat in Brighton. I believe if they were given equal attention, they would be a strong contender (I know soooo many people who say they would vote green, but feel like it’s a wasted vote. So many people). They mainly get criticised for being idealistic, and saying they want to fund all sorts of things we can’t afford. The Greens say they’ll get more money by raising taxes for the rich and for large businesses, but people never seem to pay any attention to that (again, probably due to their lack of media attention).

The Scottish national Party (SNP)

The SNP are only in Scotland (surprise!), and are mainly focused on Scottish independence from the UK. After the last Scottish referendum, the SNP gained lots and lots of seats from Labour (basically no-one in Scotland votes Tory) and they are pushing for another one.

There are other parties, but they’re not particularly relevant if you want a basic overview.

Also, Northern Ireland doesn’t really have the Tories or Labour, they have their own two, so they get virtually no say in the goings-on in parliament.

//Ask me about UK Politics//

[listener-blue]

Class used to be an accurate indicator of voting habits - but that's no longer the case. In the second of a three-part Divided Kingdom series for BBC Newsnight, Katie Razzall reports from Scotland on how the political divisions between nationalists and unionists are playing out in this election.

In Yougov's latest data looking at Scottish voting intentions this election, there is a clear divide emerging between those who want an independent Scotland and those who want to remain in the Union.

About three-quarters of people who voted for independence are voting for the SNP.

Almost nine out of 10 (86%) of those who voted No are voting for the three unionist parties. The majority - 49% - are voting for the Tories; 27% for Labour and 10% for the Liberal Democrats.

It suggests that three years on from Scotland's independence referendum, the question of whether the country should split from the UK is still very much in play.

Well yes it is very much still in play. The SNP are pushing for another referendum in wake of the Brexit vote. I would go as far as to say it is the biggest voting issue in Scotland. Sure people are talking about education, the NHS, military (particularly trident) and all those other things. But before they look at  party policies on those things they are narrowing the field on the basis of their stance on the Union.

I’ve done it. I won’t vote for the SNP. Simply won’t. As it happens I disagree with them on a lot of issues, and in particular their ‘let us tell you how to live your lives’ style of government. That aside, I actually voted for one of the local SNP candidates in the recent local council elections because I know how hard he works for his local community and regardless of his political leanings I think that’s the sort of guy we need in local politics. But not in a general election - no chance.

Scottish voters who don't want to leave the Union may see this election as a chance to send that message to their government.

They most certainly do. You’d be amazed the number of people who I’ve spoken to who once said they would never vote Conservative - yet in this election they are seriously considering it because they want to send a clear message to the SNP.

At Mearns golf academy, Newsnight spoke to a retired consultant who's voted Labour all his life. Gordon Canning told us it was a difficult thing to say he might vote Conservative, but "I want the SNP to be aware that there are a large number of people in Scotland that do not want independence."

^^^

But here’s the really interesting bit that I think a lot of pro-independence people have missed....

According to Prof Curtice's analysis, at least a quarter of those who voted for the SNP in 2015 went against their party's stance in 2016 and voted to leave.

"It looks as though this group may account for a significant proportion of the loss in SNP support since then. It looks as if the nationalist pro-Brexiters may have defected from the party. The SNP may have lost the support of some of its more Eurosceptic voters, in some cases perhaps to the Conservatives."

There seems to be this widespread assumption that supporting independence goes hand in hand with wanting to remain in the EU. That is quite simply not the case. The SNP is relying on the idea that Scotland voting to stay in the EU means they should get another shot at independence. But they’re not banking on the people above. And they’re not considering people like me who voted to remain in the EU but against independence because I can assure you my stance against independence is much stronger than my belief in the benefits of the EU. 

There are also a lot of people who long term want independence but think in the wake of the Brexit vote this is ‘not the right time’ and will therefore not vote for the SNP right now regardless of their long term wishes.

It’s going to be an interesting election in Scotland. An interesting election indeed.

[global-news-station]

Britain’s feuding party leaders criss-crossed the country on Wednesday in a frantic push for votes on the eve of a highly-charged general election aimed at finally settling the Brexit crisis.

Polls open on Thursday for the third time in four years in what is widely seen as a re-run of the 2016 referendum in which a narrow majority opted to pull Britain out of the European Union.

Parliament’s splintered parties — some seeking broader independence and others wanting to keep Britain’s European ties — repeatedly rejected the divorce terms former prime minister Theresa May struck with Brussels.

Her tearful resignation brought Boris Johnson into the fray with a vow to succeed where she had failed.

The former London mayor and foreign minister has spent the campaign hammering home a “Get Brexit Done” message aimed solely at winning a majority that could let him get the deal passed by the end of next month.

– Hung parliament? –

Yet a closely watched poll showed his Conservatives’ lead over the main opposition Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn narrowing.

The YouGov study said the Tories were on course for a 28-seat majority in the 650-seat House of Commons under Britain’s first-past-the-post system.

It had forecast a 68-seat edge in a poll released on November 27.

“A Conservative majority is the most likely outcome but a hung parliament remains entirely plausible,” said University of Kent professor Matthew Goodwin.

A result in which the biggest party does not command a majority raises the possibility of Brexit being delayed for years or even cancelled in a second referendum.

It could also end the political career of Johnson — a sharply polarising figure whose appeal to core Tory voters made him the logical choice to replace the increasingly hapless May.

Johnson started the day loading milk bottles onto delivery vehicles in northern England and before baking pies in the country’s heartland and touring a Christmas wrapping paper producer in Wales.

His message everywhere was the same: he was the man to deliver on the results of the 2016 referendum and get the divisive process wrapped up.

– ‘Money in your pocket’ –

Turnout will be vital in Britain’s first December election in nearly a century. Rain and even snow are forecast for parts of election day.

Corbyn is a veteran leftist campaigner who confounded pollsters by coming within a whisker of winning the last election in 2017.

But his vague stance on Brexit and accusations of anti-Semitism in Labour have forced several top members out of the party and shadowed his campaign.

“We will put money in your pocket because you deserve it,” Corbyn promised on Thursday.

“The richest and big business will pay for it.”

Corbyn’s proposal for Brexit is for Labour to strike a more EU-friendly agreement with Brussels. Voters would then choose between that deal and the option of staying in the bloc.

But Brexit remains a political liability for Labour. Corbyn has said as little as possible about the subject and steered attention toward the taxpayer-funded National Healthcare System (NHS).

Labour accuses Johnson of abandoning the principle of free treatment for all by potentially opening up the NHS to “Big Pharma” in a post-Brexit trade deal with US President Donald Trump.

Both Johnson and Trump deny the charge.

– Permanent crisis –

Polling suggests Corbyn stands almost no chance of winning the election outright.

Yet support from the pro-EU Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Liberal Democrats could still make him the first Labour prime minister since Gordon Brown in 2010.

SNP backing for a Labour coalition government could come at the cost of a promise to back a second referendum on Scottish independence.

The YouGov poll said the SNP was gaining momentum and on course to win 41 seats. But it projected just 15 seats for the Liberal Democrats.

Analysts believe the party made a mistake by initially promising to simply cancel Brexit.

“I don’t want Brexit of course, but we have to be pragmatic, it was a referendum, we have to abide by that,” Londoner Steve Banham told AFP.

The Lib Dems now promise to back a second referendum. But this stance makes them almost indistinguishable from Corbyn’s Labour.

Some potential voters voiced dispair at Britain’s political mess.

“Everyone thinks it’s all going to be over at the end of January if the Conservatives win but it won’t,” said voter Judy Wilkinson.

The post Britain heads into charged Brexit election appeared first on ARY NEWS.

https://ift.tt/2rr13kt

[brandonfullers]

Friday the 13th – A Brexit Update

GBPUSD, H1

Political wranglings continue over the ruling of a Scottish court that Prime Minister Johnston’s “proroguing” (shutting down of Parliament for a period) was illegal, with opposition parties demanding that Parliament be reopened and with Johnson insisting that it won’t. The UK Supreme court will make a final ruling on Tuesday and its is suspected that the government will get its way. Meanwhile, with Johnson at risk of failing to deliver his “do or die” pledge to achieve Brexit on October 31, with the option to leave without a deal at that date now outlawed, there is a sense that the normally thick-skinned Johnson is feeling the pressure to make a deal with Brussels on what would be a revamped version of the already-on-the-table Withdrawal Agreement. The EU has dangled the option of limiting the Northern Ireland backstop, which would effectively wedge a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That’s the best option for Johnson if he is serious about pulling off a Halloween Brexit. Otherwise he would have to come up with alternative border arrangements that would satisfy the EU’s demands of maintaining the integrity of both the single market and the Good Friday Peace Agreement, which looks impossible, and EU officials have been signalling that they would prefer to negotiate on the “other side” of a no-deal Brexit rather than give way on these red lines. Publicly, yesterday Johnson reemphasized the whole of the UK will leave on October 31 and the DUP rejected any idea that they were softening their stance and that an “Irish Sea” border would be any more acceptable now that it was when first raised under Mrs May’s administration

There won’t likely be sufficient support in Parliament for whatever Johnson comes up with, unless he yields to demands for there being a second, confirmatory referendum, which would be politically risky for him as he heads into an election with the Brexit Party snapping at his heels. The most likely scenario remains for the Brexit deadline to be pushed out to January 31, with a “people vs parliament” general election November or December.

Sterling continues to benefit from the “no-deal Brexit Bill” and the potential softening of Johnson’s rhetoric. Cable breached 1.2400 this morning (first time since July 26) as the USD came under post ECB & pre-Fed pressure, GBPJPY broke 1.3400 (first time since July 29) and EURGBP  has traded to lows of 0.8933.

Click here to access the Economic Calendar

Stuart Cowell

Head Market Analyst

Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.

Friday the 13th – A Brexit Update published first on https://alphaex-capital.blogspot.com/

[courtneytincher]

Bolton’s Ouster Unleashes the Inner Trump

(Bloomberg) -- Want to receive this post in your inbox every day? Sign up for the Balance of Power newsletter, and follow Bloomberg Politics on Twitter and Facebook for more.John Bolton’s departure as the president’s national security adviser removes one source of American tension with the world. But it means that Donald Trump may increasingly shape U.S. foreign policy himself.Longtime hawk Bolton — fired yesterday by Trump citing disagreements on policy — was a key enabler for the president to take a hard line on Iran and North Korea.Yet while Bolton is a believer in foreign policy as a tool to combat regimes he perceives as a threat to U.S. strategic power, Trump tends to see overseas dealings through the prism of advancing U.S. economic interests.That increasingly put them at odds as Trump met with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, planned a meeting — later nixed — with the Taliban and now flirts with the idea of seeing Iran’s Hassan Rouhani. Trump also has a more relaxed view of Vladimir Putin of Russia.Much now depends on who becomes the fourth national security adviser to serve Trump, and how quickly.In the short term, Bolton’s demise may strengthen Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, a Trump loyalist, and leave rulers Bolton detests breathing easier. But it also removes a brake on Trump recalibrating foreign policy in even more disruptive ways.Global HeadlinesJust In:  A Scottish court ruled that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament is unlawful, meaning the U.K. Supreme Court will take up the issue next week, further clouding the constitutional picture over Brexit.Trump’s headaches | As Trump accelerates his 2020 re-election campaign, he faces months of investigations by House Democrats on everything from his finances to his alleged role in payments to silence two women claiming to have had affairs with him. Added to those, the Judiciary Committee says it’s reached a key phase in building an impeachment case against the president.Unlikely comeback | Taiwan’s China-skeptic leader, Tsai Ing-wen, looked to be on the way out just a few months ago, with poor polling heading into presidential elections in January. The Hong Kong protests changed all that. Tsai’s firm stance on China has become her biggest selling point to a Taiwanese electorate acutely aware that what happens in Hong Kong matters for them.Good fortune | Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s assault on economic orthodoxy — high interest rates cause inflation, he maintains — may just benefit from favorable timing and data. Analysts are predicting the world’s biggest interest-rate cuts will precede a drop in inflation from around 20% to single digits. The question is how long the lira can bear it: cutting too far will crash the currency and send inflation soaring again.Google’s heart | U.S. state attorneys general investigating Google over antitrust concerns are targeting its core business model by ordering it to turn over a wide range of information about its sprawling system of online advertising products. Questions posed by their investigative demand, which is similar to a subpoena, dig deep into Google’s money-making machine and ask for a thorough explanation of how it all works.Netanyahu’s gambit | Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal to annex swaths of the West Bank was denounced as “madness” by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who appealed to the international community to stop it. The move would deal a body blow to Palestinian dreams of an independent state. Next week’s Israeli elections will show if Netanyahu’s bid pays off regardless.What to WatchItalian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is due to meet top officials in Brussels today and forge what he promises will be warmer ties with the EU after he won the second of two confidence votes in parliament. Russia and Ukraine will face off at Europe’s top human rights court over claims that Moscow-led forces tortured and killed Ukrainian police and civilians during their annexation of Crimea five years ago. A Nigerian court is due to rule today on an opposition challenge to President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-election in February in Africa’s biggest oil producer.And finally...Libya is gripped by its worst fighting since the 2011 NATO-backed ouster of Moammar Qaddafi, as rival powers vie for control of the oil-rich North African nation. Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar’s self-styled Libyan National Army, the largest force in the country, is trying to pry the UN-backed government of Fayez al-Sarraj from the capital, Tripoli. The upshot, as Samer Al-Atrush reports, is a population that’s grown inured to violence, power cuts and gas shortages, and a country more divided than ever. \--With assistance from Benjamin Harvey.To contact the author of this story: Rosalind Mathieson in London at rmathieson3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Alan Crawford at acrawford6@bloomberg.net, Karl MaierFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

(Bloomberg) -- Want to receive this post in your inbox every day? Sign up for the Balance of Power newsletter, and follow Bloomberg Politics on Twitter and Facebook for more.John Bolton’s departure as the president’s national security adviser removes one source of American tension with the world. But it means that Donald Trump may increasingly shape U.S. foreign policy himself.Longtime hawk Bolton — fired yesterday by Trump citing disagreements on policy — was a key enabler for the president to take a hard line on Iran and North Korea.Yet while Bolton is a believer in foreign policy as a tool to combat regimes he perceives as a threat to U.S. strategic power, Trump tends to see overseas dealings through the prism of advancing U.S. economic interests.That increasingly put them at odds as Trump met with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, planned a meeting — later nixed — with the Taliban and now flirts with the idea of seeing Iran’s Hassan Rouhani. Trump also has a more relaxed view of Vladimir Putin of Russia.Much now depends on who becomes the fourth national security adviser to serve Trump, and how quickly.In the short term, Bolton’s demise may strengthen Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, a Trump loyalist, and leave rulers Bolton detests breathing easier. But it also removes a brake on Trump recalibrating foreign policy in even more disruptive ways.Global HeadlinesJust In:  A Scottish court ruled that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament is unlawful, meaning the U.K. Supreme Court will take up the issue next week, further clouding the constitutional picture over Brexit.Trump’s headaches | As Trump accelerates his 2020 re-election campaign, he faces months of investigations by House Democrats on everything from his finances to his alleged role in payments to silence two women claiming to have had affairs with him. Added to those, the Judiciary Committee says it’s reached a key phase in building an impeachment case against the president.Unlikely comeback | Taiwan’s China-skeptic leader, Tsai Ing-wen, looked to be on the way out just a few months ago, with poor polling heading into presidential elections in January. The Hong Kong protests changed all that. Tsai’s firm stance on China has become her biggest selling point to a Taiwanese electorate acutely aware that what happens in Hong Kong matters for them.Good fortune | Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s assault on economic orthodoxy — high interest rates cause inflation, he maintains — may just benefit from favorable timing and data. Analysts are predicting the world’s biggest interest-rate cuts will precede a drop in inflation from around 20% to single digits. The question is how long the lira can bear it: cutting too far will crash the currency and send inflation soaring again.Google’s heart | U.S. state attorneys general investigating Google over antitrust concerns are targeting its core business model by ordering it to turn over a wide range of information about its sprawling system of online advertising products. Questions posed by their investigative demand, which is similar to a subpoena, dig deep into Google’s money-making machine and ask for a thorough explanation of how it all works.Netanyahu’s gambit | Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal to annex swaths of the West Bank was denounced as “madness” by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who appealed to the international community to stop it. The move would deal a body blow to Palestinian dreams of an independent state. Next week’s Israeli elections will show if Netanyahu’s bid pays off regardless.What to WatchItalian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is due to meet top officials in Brussels today and forge what he promises will be warmer ties with the EU after he won the second of two confidence votes in parliament. Russia and Ukraine will face off at Europe’s top human rights court over claims that Moscow-led forces tortured and killed Ukrainian police and civilians during their annexation of Crimea five years ago. A Nigerian court is due to rule today on an opposition challenge to President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-election in February in Africa’s biggest oil producer.And finally...Libya is gripped by its worst fighting since the 2011 NATO-backed ouster of Moammar Qaddafi, as rival powers vie for control of the oil-rich North African nation. Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar’s self-styled Libyan National Army, the largest force in the country, is trying to pry the UN-backed government of Fayez al-Sarraj from the capital, Tripoli. The upshot, as Samer Al-Atrush reports, is a population that’s grown inured to violence, power cuts and gas shortages, and a country more divided than ever. \--With assistance from Benjamin Harvey.To contact the author of this story: Rosalind Mathieson in London at rmathieson3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Alan Crawford at acrawford6@bloomberg.net, Karl MaierFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

September 11, 2019 at 11:00AM via IFTTT

[uncivilwars]

Intro to the Ongoing Civil War

I am a military veteran and a mother who has always been held by a fascination with the American Civil War. I am a federalist and have followed that federalism to the political parties that carry it. My preoccupation with the Civil War and the federalism argument our predecessors settled might be blamed on my veteran status. I come from an Irish American background, and my mother’s ancestors signed up for union service when they departed the boat. We’ve served in every American war since then, and I am the first woman in my family to do so. I’m proud of that service and my dedication to our family traditions even within our poverty stricken and cobbled together past. But this is not the reason for my obsession with the Civil War and the battles we’re still fighting. That obsession comes from being a mother. I’ll get to that in a moment, but first, I have to address that I am not a historian or an expert. I adore history but my concentration is biology. I only have a love of history, two eyes to see the truth (and the same access to primary sources other Americans have) and a firm conviction that the Myth of the Lost Cause must be defied in every corner of every American home if we are to ever retire this war. My disclaimer comes from a sense of honesty. I refuse to debase myself with lost cause tactics as so many others did in the 1920s when they sought to rob America of her true history. 

I’ve always viewed “small government” rhetoric as naive at its best moment, and grossly hypocritical at its worst. Knowing this, I viewed the lost cause myth with skepticism. That grew from even a childhood understanding that all the history I learned was academic, source driven, and instructive except for the myths surrounding the Civil War. These narratives read like dime store romance novels or sweeping cinematic epics filled to the brim with flattering lighting on sumptuous 19th century ballgowns. Even in youth I knew this was disingenuous with even our most superfluous American legends. I knew about the Daughters of the Confederacy as they featured as heroines in the Southern Baptist home-school curriculum I used. I knew too many supercilious “accounts” made a full generation later, went directly against the facts the same lost cause supporters printed in our textbooks. I also knew our entire identity as a nation depended entirely upon the pull of the Civil War and how it was fought. In my teens, I understood that the “great America led by God to defeat Nazism and communism” was the same result of the Union victory my religious leaders so reviled. I knew something was wrong from the start. 

My service in our massive federal military permanently divorced me from the Lost Cause myth I learned in my youth. I came to realize in the midst of our forever war that our identity held us back from the behemoth of detached but gracious power we imagine ourselves to be. And I came back again and again to the identity we never fully claimed after the assassination of Lincoln and the South’s resistance to their defeated state. This was still an immature stance even while it was closer to the truth than I had ever been before. I was always searching for the missing narrative that could complete the story of the America we had become. 

It took becoming a mother for this to dawn on me. The missing narrative was the black American witnesses of the Civil War. I am a white woman. My son and daughter are white. We are also Korean, Scottish and German with some native heritage but not enough to insult the indigenous Americans with the reminder of the violations that must have taken place for me to share their blood. I certainly cannot claim to share their heritage unless it is the aggressor who helped bring the South to its knees and then turned its blood-soaked gaze to the native tribes and original peoples of this land. My Irish ancestors pushed west just as greedily as anyone else. Our place in helping to build the railroad cannot possibly wash the stain of conquest and racism clean from a past I had no part in but am still heartily sorry for. I knew this entire era from the viewpoint of my own perspective. The reason the union won, the consequences of that victory, and the greatness we have achieved because of it still cannot be answered with the disjointed story of North and South that I have. 

It is 2019 while I write this. My mother and grandmother have told me what the Civil Rights era was like. They witnessed it. My great-grandmother recounted the long women’s struggle for humanity and autonomy in this nation of freed people constantly fighting to be free. I was raped in the military and saw the way America still struggles to join it’s vision of equality while it purposely keeps anyone outside of the white male powers from any semblance of independence and liberty. But these histories, these lived experiences are at least complete and fully recorded. There is no missing gap of information. Even while women are spoken over and dictated to, there is no confusion as to what the women before us experienced. I haven’t had the entire legacy of my past taken from me. But black Americans have had it stolen. They’ve had it re-written. They’ve had their legacy slandered and destroyed in plain sight while white America looked on. Charlottesville,Trump’s election, and the alarming rate Fox News has proudly claimed fascism, takes all of the attention regarding race in America today. But after having my son, I saw what was coming for his world when I watched a neighbor I thought was decent, spit and declare that any black man who thought he could be president “should hang like we used to to damn n-------.” I was that white woman who had made the guilty and terrible mistake of thinking racism was a settled issue and my own neighbor (whom I never spoke to again) woke me up to the reality. Trump is a symptom of America’s ongoing Civil War. The battles arise again and again because some of us just don’t want to do our own labor and resent the loss of oppressed labor forces we can dehumanize and abuse. I refuse to be a part of this. 

I’ve decided to blog the days of the Civil War in reverse starting with Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House. That first official entry in this blog will be posted on April 9th, 155 years after the single most underrated legend of our history. While every historian mentions the odd history of the owner of Appomattox, the portent of the story would not be known without hindsight. I will endeavor to add the prophetic weight of that story as well. I am blogging this to better understand my history and to process the deep resentment I feel for the post-Civil War South. Its criminal treatment of history to serve their early 20th century egotism is something I will never be complicit in again. I resent that the statements of black Americans are missing from this war. What is more heroic to Americans than a man fighting for his freedom? And who in our past fought for their freedom more literally than the slave turned soldier to free his family and brethren? Because I am a white woman, I cannot expand on a narrative I have no business speaking over. That hole in our history is not a void, but a purposely suppressed witness testimony. If there is no story, song, testimony or narrative within that suppressed voice, I do not have the right to fill the uncomfortable silence with another white voice. While I am livid that the irreplaceable history was lost as black Civil War veterans died out in the 20th century, I have no right to replace that tragedy with my own hope to lend support. But I can stop the Lost Cause. I can challenge every racist fool in this nation. And I can use a voice I have as a white woman to show there is healthy dissent against white supremacy and it’s about to get loud. These racists will not win. And I’m about to burn their story to the ground like Sherman on a bender in Atlanta. 

If this is read by others, I may ramble from time to time as I include my favorite stories and developments within the war (like the astounding medical advancement that came to meet the carnage). I am writing this to make sense of the most important war ever fought by our nation. And I am writing it here to add another voice to stand with evidence, truth and accuracy, against the foolish stupidity of a still sulking southern ideal. I do not care if I offend with truth, although I will plead the status of my service to this nation when it is my language alone that offends. Welcome to an exploration of the war that should have ended 155 years. A war I aim to finish before my death to achieve the world my children deserve and that has been too long in coming. 

[reomanet]

May prepares to open historic debate as ECJ opinion encourages anti-Brexit campaigners – Politics live | Politics

May prepares to open historic debate as ECJ opinion encourages anti-Brexit campaigners – Politics live | Politics

Skip to main content switch to the International edition switch to the UK edition switch to the US edition switch to the Australia edition current edition: International edition The Guardian – Back to home Support The Guardian Contribute Subscribe Contribute Search jobs Sign in My account Comments & replies Public profile Account details Emails & marketing Membership Contributions Digital Pack Sign out Search News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle Show More News World news UK news Science Cities Global development Football Tech Business Environment Obituaries Opinion The Guardian view Columnists Cartoons Opinion videos Letters Sport Football Rugby union Cricket Tennis Cycling F1 Golf US sports Culture Books Music TV & radio Art & design Film Games Classical Stage Lifestyle Fashion Food Recipes Love & sex Health & fitness Home & garden Women Family Travel Money What term do you want to search? Search with google Make a contribution Subscribe International edition switch to the UK edition switch to the US edition switch to the Australia edition Search jobs Dating Holidays Digital Archive The Guardian app Video Podcasts Pictures Newsletters Today’s paper Inside the Guardian The Observer Guardian Weekly Crosswords Facebook Twitter Search jobs Dating Holidays Digital Archive World Europe US Americas Asia Australia Middle East Africa Inequality Cities Global development More Politics live with Andrew Sparrow Politics Theresa May opens main Brexit debate after three Commons defeats – as it happened Rolling coverage of the day’s politics, as Theresa May opens five-day debate on Brexit deal Full Brexit legal advice to be published after government loses vote BBC cancels Brexit debate plans What happens if May’s deal is rejected? Updated Play Video 0:00 Theresa May opens main Brexit debate after Commons defeats – watch live Andrew Sparrow and Kevin Rawlinson Tue 4 Dec 2018 22.38 GMT First published on Tue 4 Dec 2018 09.09 GMT Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Key events Show 6.52pm GMT 18:52 May says search for ‘perfect Brexit’ should not prevent a ‘good Brexit’ 6.34pm GMT 18:34 May announces plans to give parliament greater role in next stage of UK’s negotiation with EU 6.11pm GMT 18:11 26 Tory MPs who voted for Grieve amendment 6.13pm GMT 18:13 4 Labour MPs who voted against Grieve amendment 5.50pm GMT 17:50 Theresa May opens main Brexit debate 5.57pm GMT 17:57 May says Brexit divisions ‘corrosive’ and ‘life depends on compromise’ 5.46pm GMT 17:46 MPs vote to ensure Commons gets chance to vote for ‘plan B’ Brexit option in January if necessary Live feed Show 9.02pm GMT 21:02 Evening summary We’re going to close down this live blog now. Here’s a summary of the most important events on a damaging day for the government: Theresa May suffered defeats in the Commons over her approach to Brexit. First, the government was found in contempt of parliament , in a historic move, over the refusal to publish the full Brexit legal advice. Ministers said it would be produced tomorrow. Then the government lost a vote over an amendment that would give MPs the chance to vote on a plan B if May’s Brexit deal is rejected. The prime minister sought to defend her deal, saying the Brexit divisions had been “corrosive”. She cast the deal as one that met the UK’s requirements, while compromising in some areas – and, perhaps more importantly, the only deal on offer. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said his party would not back the deal, saying it provided no certainty. He said, more generally, that ministers should be ashamed of the state they had left the country in. And, turning to the deal itself, he said it was “not the deal the country was promised and parliament cannot and, I believe will not accept it”. You can read our full story here: Theresa May staggers on after three Brexit defeats in single day Read more Updated at 10.38pm GMT Facebook Twitter Google plus 8.36pm GMT 20:36 Closing, Blackford calls for a separate arrangement for Scotland, saying one has been handed to Northern Ireland once Brexit comes about next year. He says Scotland has been “ignored, sidelined and undermined” during the Brexit negotiations and calls for Scottish independence from the UK. Updated at 8.37pm GMT Facebook Twitter Google plus 8.12pm GMT 20:12 When asked by Daniel Kawczynski , the UK’s first Polish-born MP, whether his pro-immigration stance would “give wind to Ukip’s sails”, Blackford said: I simply say we need to take these arguments on – migration has enriched us. The thought we would take up the drawbridge and stop people coming to participate in the growth of our country is quite fundamentally repugnant to me. Updated at 8.33pm GMT Facebook Twitter Google plus 8.10pm GMT 20:10 The SNP’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford , says he is proud to be a citizen of the EU and introduces a friend of his from Amsterdam, who is in the Commons gallery. He says that friendship came about as a result of the rights afforded him as a citizen of the bloc. Those rights are to be given away and the UK to become and inward-looking country as a result of Brexit , he says. Facebook Twitter Google plus 8.04pm GMT 20:04 Johnson ends, saying he fears parliament is “trying to cheat” the British people and predicting that politicians will be clearly seen as doing so if they back Theresa May’s deal. Updated at 8.14pm GMT Facebook Twitter Google plus 7.54pm GMT 19:54 Johnson is getting on to his solution. He says the government should go back to Brussels and say the UK should say it wants a deal if it can get one. But we will not accept the backstop, he says. The former foreign secretary says the new partnership talks would be a better forum for talks about the arrangements in the island of Ireland and they should be left until then. He says half of the money agreed upon should be withheld initially. Updated at 7.56pm GMT Facebook Twitter Google plus 7.43pm GMT 19:43 Johnson is accused by Sir Roger Gale of being someone who “prefers the grievance to the solution”. May has come up with a solution, he is told, “what is his big idea?” He is he will get to that soon. More on that when it comes in. Updated at 8.01pm GMT Facebook Twitter Google plus 7.39pm GMT 19:39 Back in the chamber, Johnson – who has been saying the EU would have the power to simply refuse to release the UK from the backstop – is asked if he takes no responsibility, as a senior leave campaigner and former foreign secretary. The fact is I’m afraid I was not able to continue to support this process. He is reminded he initially supported May’s Chequers agreement, before deciding later to resign over it. Johnson had been saying: They will keep us in permanent captivity as a memento mori, as a reminder to the world of what happens to all those who try to leave the EU. This is a recipe for blackmail and it’s open to any member of the EU to name its price for Britain’s right to leave the backstop. The Spanish will make a play for Gibraltar, the French will go for our fish and our bankers, the Germans may well want some concessions on the free movement of EU nationals and so it goes on. Updated at 7.50pm GMT Facebook Twitter Google plus 7.37pm GMT 19:37 The Conservative MP, Dominic Grieve , has been speaking about his amendment outside the Commons chamber, which passed earlier this afternoon. Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) Dominic Grieve tells Sky News “Can’t guarantee that No Deal is off the table but a device that was trying to manoeuvre us towards No Deal is off the table��� pic.twitter.com/CWeVRvbFvt December 4, 2018 Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) Grieve: it gives me no pleasure to defeat the Government – I have no desire to undermine the PM – but the only way to work through this is to debate all the options December 4, 2018 Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) On a No confidence vote you side with Government? Grieve: of course I do December 4, 2018 Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) Grieve: if this deal is passed by Parliament it won’t resolve anything – divisions will continue past March 29th… We need to extend A50 in order to have another referendum… remain option needs to be on the ballot paper. December 4, 2018 Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) Tested the “ECJ/ Grieve amendment means no No Deal and perhaps No Brexit so ERGers will vote for May’s Deal to get some Brexit theory” with a top Tory Brexiter. “No chance, it’s an affront to democracy, I’m voting against for my daughter”. December 4, 2018 Updated at 7.42pm GMT Facebook Twitter Google plus 7.35pm GMT 19:35 The former foreign secretary, Boris Johnson , is on his feet. He says there is no support for May’s deal. The former culture secretary, Ed Vaizey , rises to disagree. Johnson relents, but says both remainers and leavers – even the whole Johnson family – is united in the belief that this is a bad deal. Facebook Twitter Google plus 1 of 11 Newest Newer Older Oldest Topics Politics Politics live with Andrew Sparrow Brexit Theresa May Jeremy Corbyn Conservatives House of Commons European Union

Read More…

The post May prepares to open historic debate as ECJ opinion encourages anti-Brexit campaigners – Politics live | Politics appeared first on TBNT Have The Solution.

from TBNT Have The Solution https://ift.tt/2StHu2H via Article Source

[wionews]

The 'Left' and 'Right' of politics: What's left in 'Left' after North-East drubbing

The recent assembly elections in the North East have seen a huge change in the political landscape of the region. The election results marked the entry of the right-wing power in the state, replacing the long-established hold of Left.

But what exactly do we mean by 'Left' and 'Right' while discussing politics? The terms originated in France during the French Revolution in 1789 when the members of the National Assembly were divided into two groups.

One supported the king while the other opposed the order of the day. The supporters of the contemporary political system used to sit on the right side of the President while the opposition sat to his left and sought revolution by disrupting the existing system.

The seating arrangement of the two groups was not accepted by the loyalists of the kings, whereas the left appreciated the different seating seeing it as a move of change.

With the beginning of the twentieth century, the terms were widely associated with different political ideology. Republicans who practiced liberal political ideas came to be known as the “left” group; the “right-wing” politics was associated with the Conservatives.

 By 1914, the terms were widely used to describe political positions and parties. 

In his book, The Web of Government (1947), Scottish sociologist Robert M Maclver has mentioned Right ideological politics as always associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, while the Left sector caters to the lower economic and social classes.

The 'left' is generally called the 'party of the movement' while the 'right' often stands as the 'party of the order'.

 The major front of the Left politics in India is occupied by the Communist Party of India (CPI). The party was founded on December 26, 1925, at the first Party Conference in Kanpur.

However, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM), which is now separated from the party (CPI), believes its foundation year as 1920 in Tashkent, Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

 In the recent years, the CPI has witnessed a massive defeat. It secured a single seat out of 545 seats in the 2014 Lok Sabha election. Following this, the Election Commission had issued a letter asking the party “why its status as the national party should not be revoked”.

 The party which was the major opposition in 1952, after the very first general elections in Independent India, has now reduced to a single state presence in Kerala.

It ceded its control over West Bengal in 2011 after ruling the state for nearly 30 years including its current loss in the Left bastion of North East.

In 2008, it drew support from the United Progressive Alliance after UPAs decision to join US-Indian peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. It also opposed the setting up of private industries in Kolkata

The Bhartiya Janata Party, founded in the 1980s, gained prominence in the country with its support to the building of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.  The ideological inclination of the party clearly demarcates it as a 'right-wing' political party. Until the advent of the BJP, the parties ruling the county had either 'Centrist', 'Left to Centre' or a complete 'Leftist' stance.

Over the years, BJP has shown an aggressive stand on religion, nationalism, support for traditional society and culture. It has never tried to gather minority votes by following appeasement policy of religious minorities. The BJP has always demanded equality for all, including the majority community.

In the recent assembly elections in the North East, the BJP swept to power evicting the Left front in Tripura which ruled the state for 25 years. Tripura was one of the few Left-led havens in India. However, the massive mandate with which the right-wing tore apart the strong presence of the Left government questions the future of Left politics in India.

Will the Left make a strong comeback or soon become history in Indian politics is a question only they can answer. 

]]>

[newstfionline]

Learning to Live With a Changing World Map

By Joshua Keating, NY Times, Sept. 22, 2017

On Jan. 8, 1918, less than a year after the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson spoke before a joint session of Congress to present a vision of a radically new international system that he believed would prevent the outbreak of another war. Wilson called for an “impartial adjustment of all colonial claims,” respecting the sovereignty of the people living under colonialism, and a redrawing of borders “along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.”

Though the actual postwar settlement fell far short of Wilson’s vision, the idea that national borders should be based on ethnic self-determination had a more wide-ranging impact than he intended. Wilson’s speech caused a sensation from India to Egypt to China and far beyond.

In the coming weeks, two would-be nations will decide whether to pursue self-determination in accordance with Wilsonian principles. On Sept. 25, Iraqi Kurdistan will vote on independence from Iraq. On Oct. 1, Catalonia will vote on independence from Spain. In both cases, the countries potentially being seceded from oppose even asking the question. And in both cases, even if voters choose independence, the would-be countries are likely to face the opposition of the international community, including the United States.

This isn’t surprising. Since Wilson’s time, the United States, a country founded as a breakaway colony, has generally been reluctant to see changes to the world map. During the Cold War, this tendency resulted in formal American neutrality during the wars of independence in Biafra from 1967 to 1970 and in Bangladesh in 1971. Despite public outrage over the suffering of civilians and public pressure to support the rebels, Washington refused to abandon two Cold War allies, Nigeria and Pakistan.

In 1991, President George H. W. Bush opposed the breakup of the Soviet Union, warning Ukrainians in what became known as the “Chicken Kiev” speech that “freedom is not the same as independence” and “Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism.” That same year, after Croatia held an independence referendum, the State Department made clear that the United States was committed to the “territorial integrity of Yugoslavia within its present borders”--a stance that did little to prevent the country’s bloody disintegration.

During the first war in Chechnya in 1996, President Bill Clinton dubiously compared President Boris Yeltsin of Russia with Abraham Lincoln, who he said gave his life for the proposition “that no state had a right to withdraw from our union.” Before Scotland’s referendum on independence in 2014, President Barack Obama urged Scottish voters preserve a “strong, robust and united” Britain. The Trump administration, despite flirting with the idea of dropping the longstanding “one China” policy recognizing Beijing’s sovereignty over Taiwan, seems to have settled into a similar embrace of the cartographical status quo.

There have been deviations, notably America’s support for the independence of Kosovo and South Sudan, but these have come to be seen as cautionary tales. Russia used Kosovo as a precedent in recognizing breakaway regions of Georgia, and accused the United States of hypocrisy for not following suit. South Sudan, which has collapsed into civil war and ethnic cleansing, hasn’t exactly bolstered the arguments of independence movements elsewhere.

America’s aversion to border changes conforms with the policies of the world’s major multilateral institutions. Starting in the 1960s, the United Nations backed the independence of former European colonies, but once they were independent, opposed “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country.” This principle was adopted even though many of the new countries had borders drawn by the colonists. Even the African Union, an organization founded on the rejection of colonialism, is dedicated to preservation of one of colonialism’s principal legacies, including language in its charter affirming its members’ “respect of borders existing on achievement of independence.”

At the United Nations’ founding, it had 51 member states. Today there are 193. But the creation of new countries has slowed. In the 21st century, only three new countries have joined the U.N.: East Timor, Montenegro and South Sudan. (Switzerland finally joined in 2002, but it’s hardly a new country.) A few other places, including Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Somaliland, are de facto autonomous but are not universally recognized.

There are several reasons for this slowdown. For one thing, after decades of decolonization and ethnic sorting, there are simply fewer separatist movements clamoring for their own countries. But one major reason is that the world’s great powers, including the United States, don’t really want to see the map changed.

This emphasis on sovereignty has, of course, often been motivated by power politics and self-interest. But there are also some good reasons to be concerned about normalizing secessionism: Peaceful separations of countries are exceedingly rare. More commonly they are catastrophic, as in the slaughter and mass displacement that accompanied the partitions of India and Yugoslavia.

The problem is, as it was in Wilson’s day, that people don’t live in neatly ordered clusters. However national boundaries are drawn, some are likely to find themselves on the wrong side of them--and genocide is as likely an outcome as peaceful coexistence.

Still, few would argue that the current map of the world is perfect. And recent events suggest it may be hard to preserve indefinitely.

In 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, President Vladimir Putin justified the absorption of a largely Russian-speaking region with near-Wilsonian language of self-determination. The United States and Europe responded to what Secretary of State John Kerry called “19th century” behavior with condemnations and sanctions, but they could do little to stop or reverse it. That same year, the Islamic State claimed it was bringing about the end of the Sykes-Picot borders drawn in the Middle East after World War I. China, meanwhile, has been bolstering its territorial claims in the South China Sea with the construction of more than 3,200 acres of new land in the form of artificial islands. More changes to the map loom: By the end of the century, rising sea levels could render some small island states uninhabitable, raising the question of whether a country can continue to exist as a political entity if the piece of land it is associated with no longer does.

Our current period of cartographical stasis might turn out to be a brief anomaly. Rather than seeking to preserve the current map at all costs, American efforts might be better spent trying to ensure that these changes happen peacefully. One idea would be to push international institutions to allow more than a one-size-fits-all definition of statehood, allowing some form of international representation for places that are largely autonomous but not fully states.

Another would be to reconsider America’s reflexive opposition to new bids for statehood. It might be helpful if there were more precedents for peaceful, orderly, democratic separations, rather than violent, chaotic ones. I’m not arguing in favor of independence for Kurdistan, Catalonia, Scotland or anyplace else. When the shapes of new countries have been drawn by people who don’t live in them, it hasn’t usually worked out very well. There are very real reasons for skepticism about all of these independence movements. But that doesn’t mean that maintaining the world’s current arrangement of countries within their existing borders needs to be a guiding principle.

Above all, the preservation of existing countries ought to guide our thinking less than the well-being of the people who live within them.