Yeah, yeah. Ramp it up.
A few truisms revisited:
Family was always traditionally the strongest bond, followed by ethnicity and nationality when there were natural borders and one or two ethnic groups which were largely the same on most day to day matters, e.g. the “Brit”.
Most people’s politics are centre-something: centre-right, centre-left. The result of the left ideologues’ actions over the past couple of decades has been to move people away from the centre towards one end or the other on key issues, e.g. familyphobia or immigration.
If there was no true left-right model of political thought before, there sure is now, with the PoMo and PC faux ideology on one side, accompanied by huge debt and huge bureaucracy to fund and administer huge social projects and provide fat cats with obscene salaries, dictating to people what they should think and say … and on the other side, the work ethic, the belief that the key to prosperity is to produce, sell and employ, that people should be free to think, speak and worship as they will, that the values of classical liberalism should apply … but that of course allows the other, more intolerant side to flourish as well.
Problem is that there is this third ideology – the federalist, hierarchical, serfdom model which recognizes the elite and the plebs only, with no middle-class and that is Themist. These are the ones in charge, using faux leftism as a vehicle.
In the Ukraine and Crimea, the problem is initially one of ethnicity, not national borders. What are national borders anyway in a continental region? The fact that Transnistria can unilaterally declare itself a nation shows the difficulty with national borders.
The mix in Transnistria is:
The issue with that chart is the Moldovan – there is no such historical entity. There were Moldavians but the borders of that region were different to that of Moldova, though the ethnicity is not in question – it’s more Roma and distinct and is certainly not Ukrainian or Russian. It’s not unlike the Northumberlander – a faux division with no [early] historical basis – the real name for the region is Northumbria, which has historical basis rather than some pollie’s whim.
If you detect an edge in that comment, you would not be wrong. LOL.
Similar thing is the silly Humberside idea, when it is clearly Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, separated by a river and a bridge. People over this side have no problem with the Lancashire idea, the red rose and across the Pennines, they have no problem with the Yorkshire idea – God’s own country – the white rose.
No one’s going to fight a war over it though, not any more, unless Them decide to use it as a tool to get conflagration going.
On the Crimea, the western MSM still either ignorantly do not get it or deliberately do not get it – Putin has not “invaded” the Crimea – it IS mainly Russian.
- 58.32% Russians
- 24.32% Ukrainians
- 12.10% Crimean Tatars
Did the UK “invade” the Falklands in taking on Argentina? If the US were to send troops to the UK in WW2 or let’s say, hypothetically, run bases all over Australia, would they have “invaded” that country in so doing? Have you ever eaten McDonald’s or Burger King or drunk Starbucks?
By the way, do you read anywhere over here about the Crimea [not Russia] running a referendum on March 30 to decide which way the Crimean people wish to go? You wouldn’t read that in our MSM, of course.
And lastly, when the division is religious, e.g. in Ireland, then it becomes ludicrous.
So what’s the issue with Russia wishing to have a friendly state beside them composed of its own people? In the faux Ukraine entity, there is eternal conflict. If the Russian [blue] area of the faux Ukraine moves closer to its mother, so what?
The “so what” is the people who oppose that and they do so for a few reasons. Firstly, the resources are in the blue region. Secondly, the nationalists in the Ukraine are genuinely Nazi and have a history of collaboration and holocaust in WW2 – it is nothing like the way Obama is portraying it – peace-loving, gentle people. Two or three thousand hardliners have undemocratically seized control in Kiev and are running the show with American/UK backing – you saw Osborne’s instant pledge of our money.
What they do in the orange part of the Ukraine does not interest Russia – let them do as they wish but if that wish is to be part of the EU, then Russia will do what any nation does – try to destabilize that, as the CIA is doing right now in the Ukraine. Crying foul, whilst technically within rights, also ignores reality – every nation does it where it perceives an ongoing threat.
Some Russians think Putin is going too far in thumbing his nose at the nazi hardiner/US/UK/Themist front and I’m speaking to one of those later today but I also speak with those who support the Russian national line. Yanukovich is a pathetic Russian placeman who was not supported by just under 50% of a divided nation but his replacement was undemocratic – these people who took over the Ukrainian parliament did so illegally. Yanukovich was an elected leader.
My mate will explain to me today why it’s not that simple, that Russia does have a claim on Kiev itself in historical terms and this today is part of my commission from Wolfie to explore, get the lowdown and present a sane and ordered “take’ on it later this month, maybe mid-month, minus the emotion. :)
Further reading from Cherie: