British Government And Their ‘Racist’ Voter ID Laws

Britain, Elections, Race, Racism

Leave a reply

From the fact that “personation—pretending to be somebody else” for the purpose of voting in their stead—is not a serious problem is the UK, it doesn’t mean that voters should not be asked to identify themselves at the ballot box. What could be simpler and fairer than that?

More total white supremacy, via The Economist:

the government judges the threat to the democratic process sufficient to warrant a big change to electoral rules. On May 11th it announced that it will legislate to require in-person voters to show photo ID. This is trickier in Britain, which does not require people to carry ID cards, than in countries which do. Driving licences and passports will be acceptable; so will pensioners’ bus passes and the “blue badges” held by disabled people. Anyone without approved photo ID will be allowed to apply for a free card.

Such a change would not block many people from voting. Seven local authorities asked voters for various forms of identification in May 2019, after warning that they would be doing so. On average, 0.4% of would-be voters who were asked for ID failed to show it, were turned away, and did not return to the polling station. ….

MORE

*Image courtesy The Economist.

UPDATED (6/4/021): 2 NEW Videos: Distinguish Critical Race Theory From Marxism: Your Life Depends On It!

Argument, Britain, Communism, Conservatism, Critical Race Theory, Ilana Mercer, Logic, Political Economy, Race, Racism

1 Reply

“For the purpose of making your way adaptively and smartly in a society that is systemically anti-white, you need to understand what distinguishes Critical Race Theory from Marxism and quit the socialism/Marxism theoretical escapism, for once and for all.”

“Get this into your head: For conflict in society, Marxism fingers social class; critical race theory saddles whites. You, if you are white…”

MORE on this distinction in my latest YouTube: “Distinguish Critical Race Theory From Marxism: Your Life Depends On It!”

David Vance and I tease out this aspect some more in our weekly, Wednesday chat. Whatever we think of it—and I follow the Austrian School of economics—Marxism in the origin is serious political economy; an intellectual treatise with gravitas. CRT is a priori gibberish. Scrap that: Befitting the boors who originated critical race anti-whitism—the theory is based on reasoning backwards—if B then A—if white then … complete the sentence with all manner of evil that comes to mind.

We also discuss uniparty politics, the futility of it, and the war on MAGA folks, all 74 million of us.

UPDATED (6/4/021):

Lynette Ackermann: “Ilana, Have you any suggestions for a new paradigm for the 21st century?”

Reply: “What I am strongly suggesting in these commentaries is… keep it real. When it comes to anti-whiteness, a very serious, grave reality, you need a strategy, not a paradigm.”

Peter McCullough On The Greatest Failure In American Medicine: COVID-19

COVID-19, Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intelligence, Science, THE ELITES, The Establishment

2 Replies

Peter McCullough: The most brilliant, independent thinker on Covid19, speaks with the fluidity of a savant on the greatest failure in American medicine.

Group think gripping Americans, in general, institutionalized, intellectual atrophy and ineptness stopped doctors from doing what medicine had always done: come up with a combination of drugs to treat outpatients, and treat them early, so as to reduce hospitalizations and mortality.

Other than a few thinkers like this man and our friends at the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Jane Orient’s org., and America’s Frontline Doctors, nobody could muster an original idea of how to put drugs together to treat the illness early. Not a single innovator, independent doctor, academic medical center; not the venerable NIH or CDC helped a single outpatient. Covid was so obviously treatable within the outpatient paradigm.

Nobody in the medical community (overrun by obedient authoritarian women worriers, not warriors) said, “Do the best you can for your patients with what you have.” If anything, early treatment was suppressed—globally—even criminalized, despite the immutable medical fact that just about every single disease does better when treated. “Wait until you can’t breathe, then go to the ER,” patients were instructed.

Medical maleficence!

Dr. McCullough has published over 40 peer-review papers on COVID alone.

Long version:

Abbreviated presentation:

MORE: “Pathophysiologic Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment for #COVID19 as an Emergency Response to the Pandemic.”

Mercer Memorial-Day Message Same Since 2009

America, Homeland Security, Israel, Just War, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, War

2 Replies

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”—ilana mercer

I have published this message every Memorial day, since 2009, softened slightly for taste.

Robert Glisson, a veteran and a longtime reader—where are you, Robert?—was once asked to write an op-ed for Barely A Blog about the “Patriot Guard Riders.” The op-ed, entitled “For The Love of A Brother-In-Arms, And ‘Big Brother’ Be Damned,” was prefaced with this comment:

“I do not identify with the military mission, but who can fault the humanity of the effort?”

It is the habit on the Memorial Day weekend to thank uniformed men for their sacrifice. And it is the annual custom on Barely A Blog to extend sympathies to the Americans who fight phantoms in far-flung destinations. I’m sorry they’ve been snookered into living, dying and killing for a lie. But I cannot honor that lie. I mourn for them, as I have from day one.

I am sorry for those who’ve enlisted thinking they’d fight for their countrymen and were subjected to one backdoor draft after another in the cause of illegal, unjust wars and assorted informal attacks. My heart hurts for you, but my worshiping at Moloch’s feet will not make you feel better, deep down.

I honor those sad, sad draftees to Vietnam and to WW II. The first valiant batch had no option; the same goes for the last, which actually fought a just war. I grew up in Israel, so I honor those men who stopped Arab armies from overrunning our homes. In 1973, we came especially close to annihilation.

I can legitimately claim to know of flesh-and-blood heroes who fought so that I could emerge from the bomb shelter (in the wars of 67 and 73) and proceed with my kid life. I always stood in their honor and wept when the sirens wailed once a year. Wherever he is, every Israeli stops on that day and stands still in remembrance. We would have been physically overrun by Arabs if not for those brave men who defended the homeland—and not some far-away imperial project—with their bodies.

But can we Americans, in 2021, make such a claim? Can we truly claim that someone killed an Iraqi, Afghani, Yemeni, Libyan or Syrian so that we may … do what? Remind me?

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”

How fast the so-called small-government types forget that the military is government. As explained in “Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program“:

“When Republicans and conservatives cavil about the gargantuan growth of government, they target the state’s welfare apparatus and spare its war machine. Unbeknown to these factions, the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small. Conservative can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.”

“Classical Liberalism And State Schemes“ further suggests how the military, as an arm of the state, can become antithetical to the liberty of its own citizens and the world’s citizens:

We have a solemn [negative] duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty, and property. But we have no duty to uphold their rights. Why? Because (supposedly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—their lives, liberties, and livelihoods. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first.
“philanthropic” wars are transfer programs—the quintessential big-government projects, if you will. The warfare state, like the welfare state, is thus inimical to the classical liberal creed. Therefore, government’s duties in the classical liberal tradition are negative, not positive; to protect freedoms, not to plan projects. As I’ve written, “In a free society, the ‘vision thing’ is left to private individuals; civil servants are kept on a tight leash, because free people understand that a ‘visionary’ bureaucrat is a voracious one and that the grander the government (‘great purposes’ in Bush Babble), the poorer and less free the people.”