By Walt Garlington for the Saker Blog
Whatever the outcome with the latest wars and rumors of wars, folks interested in creating a brighter future, wherever they are in the world, need to find ways to defend and rebuild what is essential to human flourishing in society – in particular, one of the most foundational of those elements, the family.
Last July, J. D. Vance, a candidate for US Senate in Ohio, made a policy proposal in this regard to a gathering of conservatives that sounds somewhat unorthodox: Give parents with children more political power than people without any. In his own words –
‘“The Democrats are talking about giving the vote to 16-year-olds,” Vance noted. “Let’s do this instead. Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of the children.” He continued, asking, “Doesn’t this mean that nonparents don’t have as much of a voice as parents? Doesn’t this mean that parents get a bigger say in how democracy functions?” He answered with a simple “yes” after saying “the Atlantic and the Washington Post and all the usual suspects” would criticize him.’
The ‘usual suspects’ did go about criticizing his proposal as ‘anti-democratic’ and so forth, but it is actually Mr Vance and not his opponents who can make a better case for the morality and fairness of his position. And it is in the interest of conservative-minded people that a case in his defense be made.
Since the Civil Rights era in the middle of the last century, there has been an ideological crusade in the United States to make the vote of one person equal in power to that of every other person. This is an absurdity worthy of the philosophes of the French Revolution, with their ruthlessly geometrical redesigning of their political order driven by their burning desire for Equality. But inequalities in voting strength will always exist because of a number of factors: eligible voters who don’t vote, people who move to another location before legislative redistricting occurs, etc. And perfect political equality wars against the truth of hierarchy, that the opinions of some people are of more worth than those of others.
The political tradition of the US and of Mother England has always tended to reject the abstract, revolutionary notion of voting and representation and to accept the more practical and historically rooted notion of them.
Dr Russell Kirk gives us the traditional English view in The Conservative Mind:
‘The genius of English polity is a spirit of corporation, based upon the idea of neighborhood: cities, parishes, townships, guilds, professions, and trades are the corporate bodies which constitute the state. The franchise should be accorded to persons and classes insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their particular corporations; if voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right, citizens become mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous mass of voters will degenerate into a pure democracy “inlaid with a peerage and topped with a crown,” but in reality the enthronement of demagoguery and mediocrity’ (7th edn., Regnery, Washington, D. C., 1985, pgs. 130-1).
Samuel Taylor Coleridge offered a concise summary of it all when he said, ‘Men, I still think, ought to be weighed, not counted. Their worth ought to be the final estimate of their value’ (p. 140).
A definitive American statement on the subject was given by Justice Frankfurter in his dissent in Baker v Carr. The mass of evidence he produces from England and the States refutes handily the idea that there was ever intended to be a perfectly even distribution of political power in either place, and shows rather that a prudent proportioning of political power amongst the various communities that make up a polity is the better arrangement.
To give but one example from the US of this healthy disproportion, consider briefly the federal Senate, which grew out of the historical reality of separate, unique, sovereign States, because of which each State has equal representation regardless of population, and which still draws the ire every now and then of egalitarians.
Given all of this, as well as the indisputable truth that strong families are one of the cornerstones of a healthy society, we arrive at a certain conclusion, the same one as Mr Vance: The votes of married mothers and fathers should weigh more than those of others in society. They should wield political power within the community commensurate with their importance to it; they should have access to political weapons with which they can defend the family from the depredations of harmful government policies, monopolistic woke corporations, and whatever other enemies of that salutary institution may arise.
In addition to Mr Vance’s proposal above, another basic outline of how this could work might resemble the following: When a married man and woman have their third child (i.e., going beyond the bare replacement rate), the vote of the husband and of the wife would be counted twice in every election instead of once. If they divorced, each vote would be counted only once, as before.
By adopting such a proposal, whatever form it takes in the end, we would be returning to the saner political practices of the past. It mirrors in particular the ‘fancy franchises’ found in England not so long ago, ‘plural votes for the educated, the thrifty, the propertied, the leaders of men, to ensure that votes might be weighed as well as counted’ (Kirk, p. 277).
To enact plural voting for parents (perhaps we could call it the ‘family franchise’) would require revisions, judicial, legislative, and otherwise. But we have seen some healthy revisions in laws and courts before, with anti-commandeering/10th Amendment actions, and more and more with abortion. And just as in those instances, the courageous and thoughtful actions of State and local officials will be key.
Financial incentives to encourage young folks to marry, shun divorce, and have children are having positive effects in places like Hungary. There is no reason we should not add some political incentives, like plural voting, as well.
Some, however, may see a danger in this proposal, in that some of the fastest growing demographic groups in the US have no roots in Christianity or any of the other venerable old folkways of Western Europe that lie at the base of the cultures of the South, Midwest, etc. Would plural voting for parents not threaten what remains of a recognizable Western, Christian tradition in the States? A few thoughts:
First, most immigrants are coming to the States mainly for economic reasons, not to preserve and perpetuate their cultural traditions. Once here, many quickly lose their cultural identity and melt into the predominantly secular culture, which means that their fertility rate plummets.
Second, some of those fast-growing demographic groups, like the Asians, are already slowing in population growth – evidence perhaps of the just-mentioned death grip of uS materialism on their birth rates.
Third, the fertility rates of conservative/traditional Christian populations are such that they could overtake the secularists/materialists in the years to come. Dr Stephen Turley writes in his book The Return of Christendom: Demography, Politics, and the Coming Christian Majority (2019, PDF version, pgs. 4, 5-6, 7),
‘According to University of London scholar Eric Kaufmann’s detailed study on global demographic trends, we are in the early stages of nothing less than a demographic revolution. In Kaufmann’s words, “religious fundamentalists are on course to take over the world.”16 There is a significant demographic deficit between secularists and conservative religionists. For example, in the U.S., while self-identified non-religionist women averaged only 1.5 children per couple in 2002, conservative evangelical women averaged 2.5 children, representing a 28 percent fertility edge. Kaufmann notes that this demographic deficit will have dramatic effects over time. In a population evenly divided, these numbers indicate that conservative evangelicals would increase from 50 to 62.5 percent of the population in a single generation. In two generations, their number would increase to 73.5 percent, and over the course of 200 years, they would represent 99.4 percent!
‘ . . . The Amish double in population every twenty years, and projections have the Amish numbering over a million in the U.S. and Canada in just a few decades.
‘ . . .
‘However, within secular globalist societies, retraditionalized families will not remain as enclaves for very long. In contrast to the flourishing fertility among conservative Christian families, Kaufmann’s data projects that secularists, who consistently exemplify a low fertility rate of around 1.5 (significantly below the replacement level of 2.1), will begin a steady decline after 2030 to a mere 14 to 15 percent of the American population. Kaufmann thus appears to have identified what he calls “the soft underbelly of secularism,” namely demography.20 This is because secular liberalism entails its own “demographic contradiction,” the affirmation of the sovereign individual devoid of the restraints of classical moral structures necessitates the freedom not to reproduce. The link between sex and procreation having been broken, modernist reproduction translates into mere personal preference. It thus turns out that radical individualism, so celebrated and revered by contemporary secular propagandists, is, in fact, the agent by which their ideology implodes.
‘ . . .
‘Phillip Longman of ForeignPolicy.com has come to the same conclusion as Kaufmann and others. In a recently published article on the rising birthrates among conservatives in Europe and the United States, Longman notes that liberal critics of the traditional family are actually plagued by a rather inconvenient fact that the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s have not and are not leaving any genetic legacy. While only 11 percent of baby boomer women had four or more children, they made up over 25 percent of the total children born to baby boomers. Conversely, the 20 percent of women who had only one child accounted for a mere 7 percent of the total children born to baby boomers. Specifically, he cites statistics from France, where only about 30 percent of women have three or more children, but they’re responsible for over 50 percent of all French births.
‘Thus, Longman concludes that this fertility discrepancy is “leading to the emergence of a new society whose members will disproportionately be descended from parents who rejected the social tendencies that once made childlessness and small families the norm. These values include adherence to traditional, patriarchal religion, and a strong identification with one’s own folk or nation.”22’
The future belongs to those who reproduce the most, and in the States and in Europe, there are signs that the more traditional Christian communities may be able to win that battle in the long run. Accordingly, we should not be afraid to place the ‘family franchise’ in the hands of married mothers and fathers.
In spite of all the theorizing and conjecturing in modern times, human nature has not changed: People are not disconnected space rocks floating randomly through the Oort Cloud of life; they are not mathematical variables in a cynical party operative’s speculative political calculus. They belong irrevocably to families, churches, neighborhoods, and so forth. Our statecraft should always reflect that reality.
The right to vote may be better predicated on a person’s IQ. i.e. stupid people should best not be participating in the governance of a state…..regardless of they bear children or not.
…..I would not consider people who have too many children in an already overcrowded world exactly smart.
In twenty years time there’s going to be a need for young adults to replace the decrepit boomers and their children
This has been the call for a long time.
But peaks are reached, decay occurs, labor shortages materialize, and when one builds more than two can maintain, then one day, the whole thing just goes to hell.
Tip of the day: Prepare now for tomorrow may be too late.
Robert,
You wrote:
I agree with you. Nor would it be wise to incentivize larger families in an already overcrowded world.
But giving extra votes to intelligent people will not necessarily solve the problem either. By all accounts, Larry Summer is a genius. But he had left a god awful mess everywhere he has been.
This is just one of any number of problems with the arguments presented in this piece, along with some rather dubious assumptions.
The first dubious assumption being one which equates more value to the abilities of someone to make informed choices if they have children than someone who does not. And we have not even considered those who, either as a result of nature or of exposure to manufactured poisons (depleted uranium, contamination of food chains etc), who cannot have children.
On what criteria and basis is such a value to be determined? Someone’s opinion? A self selected group of ‘experts’? The oligarchy of the ‘Parish Guardians’ and their ‘deserving and undeserving poor’ system?
We have all met people with half a dozen or more children who can barely get by basic day to day decision making. And the reverse is also the case. The existence of children or no children is no guarantee of sound decision making.
The next dubious, and related, assumption lies in the analysis of the processes of population growth and decline. Anyone who is familiar with even basic population modelling of any species/life form will attest that the relation ship with the environment within which any life form/species exists, and not just predator/pray relationships, and the available resources plays the key part in a dynamic and fluctuating cyclical process in which numbers change up or down over observable time.
Even within my lifetime this is evident. A feature long recognised by anthropologists. The northern working class estate where I was born didn’t so much have families as tribes. If you did not have eleven brothers and sisters your dad was a wimp. And for very good reasons to be found all over the world. Because its not that long ago in the West, and still the case in many parts of the world, where not all the children will survive.
Children who were once a family resource contributing to the family resources from an early age. Working in field and factory, even up chimneys. A proportion succumbing to industrial accidents or sickness. Progress and improvements to working conditions along with access to health services reduce that attrition rate and the need to have so many children. A correlation long noted by anthropological research.
Perhaps to achieve this argued for ‘utopia’ we should scrap the NHS in favour of health care based on the ability not just of to pay but of that of the ability to provide the highest profit level. Along with scrapping all health and safety legislation – I’m sure many in the Global South struggling in the free trade zone factories under slave labour conditions would welcome such incentives to increase the number of children produced on this proposed factory production line model.
Moving on: Two assumptions related to hierarchies are also worth making explicit.
The first is implicit and between the lines. Contrary to the implied assumption what is labelled ‘progressive’, ‘woke’ even, is just as rife with its own manufactured and created hierarchies as any other social grouping. It just happens to be a different hierarchy. Much of it based on a hierarchy of oppression. An observation succinctly put, as well as neatly skewered by Michael Parenti here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkttzU86CFE
The second assumption on hierarchy being one which elevates it as a desirable, unproblematic and superior system of organisation per se.
Anyone who has worked in the lower echelons of a modern, Western, organisation recognises the nonsense described in this piece from 2006:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/mar/12/theobserver.observerbusiness5
” If only the facts matter, it shouldn’t matter where they come from. That undercuts the traditional justification for hierarchy: that the boss knows best. Facts force the boss to choose between being ‘in control’ and being right. Many choose the former.”
I’d wager I’m far from alone in being able to fill volumes relating real life events in which those who set themselves up as superior in intellect and therefore of ‘more and better value’ to the rest of us, deserving of more democratic rights and control over everything and everybody etc – as proposed in this piece – have consistently made nonsense decisions.
From instructing people to smash up in service gas pipes to working inefficiently because I say so at one level through to creating and presiding over systems of organisation in which different parts work against each other resulting in the whole being less than the sum of the parts at the other.
No. This will not do.
To paraphrase a question asked in another context* – in that instance to the woke:
“How does it work? Who gets to define the criteria and the system of value? Is it the first to tweet or to get a quote out to the media? Is it the one with most Twitter followers? Is it the richest one who can afford the best/most lawyers?Is those at the top of the hierachy, the self appointed Parish Guardians? Is it based on a majority, and if so who’s doing the counting and on what basis?”
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-problem-with-being-liberal/
Divide and rule. After another division, people with children against people without children, we are going to be weaker.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society” — Jiddu Krishnamurti
Those who can gain the resources to sire offspring in Western, and particularly Americastani society are more likely to be part of the problem than the solution one set of ways or another.
People are a product of FUN – no more no less !
Free unfettered FUN in the form of recreational or procreational sex. The process of Sex being FUN is the sole motivation for the FUN for many people especially the low IQ.
If there is no third party involved in the FUN, why would there be any “responsibility” created for a third party for the result of private free FUN? The third party is society at large and ….taxpayers.
The point is mere – existence – due to / from – FUN – is no license or title or entitlement to……. anything!
A system grounded in the ability to command resources via – super – votes merely by creating subjective “need” when they KNEW THEY didn’t have the ability provide for the offspring “prior” to engaging in the FUN is the reason for the chaos from groups which dont care for their own responsibilities today.
….and the Author wants to make it far worse than it is currently.
Tolerance encourages Bad Behavior – Intolerance generates Performance !
Tolerance can allow Bad Behavior, Intolerance is guaranteed to encourage it by Antagonizing it. Intolerance is generated by Hypocrisy and Arrogance, driving anyone who might have been able to perform to Buried Rage.
To have the Menticide Series, which (usually) gets things things pretty much correct (although I have some problems with it in a few areas) and then this eugenics crap, well what can I say if you have not at least partially figured it out by now?
Who in his or her right mind would want to raise offspring in this Zionist, neoconservative, neoliberal, corporatist environment unless your grandfather left you a substantial trust fund such as is the case with Bill Gates?
When it comes to Wokism (at least anything resembling its current form), I blame “Republicans,” DINOs, corporations, stink tanks, and the scum of curdled milk which hath risen to the top and the 30-40% or so of the population hooked on the likes of Fox Hasbara and Fox Plunderbund by far the most.
If only I knew what I know now 42 years ago when I was 12 and would have probably have made the mistake of taking a chance on “Populist” David Duke who had supposedly changed if it were legal for me to vote…
Duke ’80, Koch ’80, I mean Clark, of course, Trump ’16, I call it being fooled twice. A popular saying and a song by The Who come readily to my mind.
I do not think there is any chance of Repugnants running Trump, more likely not qualified Cruz or someone else who is four orders of magnitude worse than Killary and K Sick and five orders of magnitude worse than Orange Clown.
Our “Christian” churches and their geriatric clientele are pretty much disconnected from the concerns of Generation X down to Z with the possible exception of right-wing ones that mention Christians are being persecuted in the MENA but do not tell the truth about who is doing the persecuting, who are trying to protect them, and the effect and purposes of related Americastani policies.
Bars, Churches, and mass media, especially the ones we have: some kind of substitute for culture that only fools the naive left of the Bell Curve, or about 99.44% of Americastanis.
Now I feel like taking another shower on top of the one I just had using the close equivalent of Ivory (Jergens) I have on hand.
But our statecraft has not reflected such a reality in the past but has rebelled against it. What do you think the people who are losing the baby race are going to do? They will stand fore square against your proposition when they become sufficiently aware of it.
Social order is full of people with different desires. Emphasis on family is only one possibility. Once people not in a family way feel threatened by the baby race there will be incentive to change the rules of the game. It will not be so simple as you think.
No one knows anyway what such a family oriented demographic would really be like. Perhaps it would be benign and perhaps not. Very conservative, family oriented and inward looking polities may be even more frustrating than the loose vanities of the current situation. Such a father knows or mother knows best world is likely to offend some people very much and bind more. These people would be seeking an escape. Such a world might not be stable. We once lived in a world of dominant families and look where we are today. Returning to such an era by voter manipulation may be very disruptive.
So I would ask you to tell us more about the expected character of the population you propose to create and the body of people who would find it insufferable. The world should not necessarily be just about one thing.
Only those who can knock back a 6 pack of beer, look around the poker table and find the patsy, should be allowed to VOTE.
Excuse me Mr.Garlington but I think you are engaged in wishful thinking. You are not going to put your Christianity back together. You set upon it in the 16th and 17th centuries and totally dismantled it and All the King’s Men will not be able to put it back together. And of course you called your destructive acts progress!
The madness that has taken over the so-called West did not happen accidentally. You played God and God is playing you.
This article has two separate, exclusive ideas to discuss: providing extra voting power to parents and creating a Christian fundamentalist society.
Extra voting power to parents: I do not see how this can be implemented in an equitable or practical manner. I like the idea that I would have extra voting rights to ensure my daughter has equitable access to housing, food, education, health care, security (basically socialism) but this would hurt those who cannot have children for either biological or economic reasons as well as those who choose terrible partners to mate with (e.g. wife beaters, addicts, cheaters). I would like to hear others thoughts on this aspect of the article.
Creating a Christian fundamentalist society: No thanks. Everyone should be free to have, or not have, faith in any religion/deity they choose and this faith, or lack thereof, should remain in the religious realm (similar to what Kierkegaard said in Fear and Trembling) separate from the political realm.
Au contraire – giving voting right to children would create more equitable society.
State has to represent all its citizens. Children are citizens too, they will inherit the state and they have strong interest in how it is governed. Just because they do not have capability to express that interest is not good argument to take away their right to influence it.
As long as we recognize parents as legal representatives of their children, they should also represent them in the governing of society.
It is not in any way unjust to those who cannot have children. The extra voting rights are not privilege – it is a representation of the vote of another citizen who is incapable of exercising that right himself.
The problem of wife beaters, abusers etc. should be dealt with using other means. It is not a good argument to rob large part of society of their voting right.
@ Lauris
Thanks for the reply. My comment is referring to the issue of implementation of extra voting rights for parents instead of the concept of said rights. As an example, who gets the extra vote? The mother? The father? Both? Or when would these extra voting rights end? When the child turns 16/18? When the child stops living at home/being a dependent? Or what if a child (someone whose parent votes for them) has a child? As a concept, I think it deserves more discussion time but, as with most things in life, the devil is in the details.
As to my wife beater comment, that was in specific reference to the author’s notion of losing the extra voting rights in the case of a divorce.
Capitalism has made a virtue out of self-interest and the pursuit of material wealth and in doing so has created a culture of shattered dreams and a landscape filled with “Broken highways, bankrupt cities, collapsing bridges, failed schools, the unemployed, the underpaid and the uninsured: all suggest a collective failure of will. These shortcomings are so endemic that we no longer know how to talk about what is wrong, much less set about repairing it.
When all else fails let’s talk up war! It is about economics and at the moment we live under the worst capitalism can offer neoliberalism.
It is devoid of any sense of social responsibility and is driven by an unchecked desire to accumulate capital at all costs. As power becomes global and politics remains local, ruling elites no longer make political concessions to workers or any other group that they either exploit or consider disposable.
Hi, I am a bit mind blown by that kind of logic… I find it dangerous, no offense. Yes the family is a microcosm and society a macrocosm. If family relationships are in order, in harmony, then society is likely to be more functional. Very Chinese. Very wise.
Yes medieval corporations had a regulation system, much more functional that the free for all disregulated system of nowadays corporations , bound to gear towards monopolies. In parenthesis, the new model of corporation was born out of Anglo trusts and such, part of the maritime Law which pledge allegiance to serve the private interests of a few and then set up a worship the financial Market God. In brief, the economic/ financial is dictating the politics, instead of the other way around. Politics is that regulatory system that works for the people, by the people. The economy is their work and activities, and money, a mean to facilitate that flow, so everybody gets their needs met, to the best of capabilities. So, yes for meritocracy.
China is a much better example in that matter. At the ground level, similar I imagine to the medieval corporations, maybe not. Basically little local groups of interests , like farmers let’s say, choosing one among themselves to represent them at the next level above in an other group, where another person will be chosen, and so forth and so on. Each level has its maximum autonomy ( the subsidiary thing) and each chosen one with invested power is accountable and has to fulfill the specific tasks he/she was chosen for (« imperative mandate »).
The basic democratic mode starts at the base!
Not in using your « right » to vote for this or that puppet, offered graciously by the power behind the scene.
But now, having a good Christian married couple with many kids having more weight than two regular citizens, it sounds like a joke. More power to them!
Sorry, it is difficult to hear certain statements and not react.
First, who is to judge of the worth of somebody? If anybody, that would be the people, if we want to be democratic. Let’s bring back the real meaning to the words we use, otherwise we are in that Tower of Babel, with no prospect to build anything of worth together.
We have been fed lots of delusions and distortions, and, now, as grown ups we feed them to ourselves, all by ourselves… Even better, we feed our kids all that illusion. Of course surrogate MotherMedia and FatherReligion is of great support, in case we would lose our bearings and start to doubt, and maybe use our critical thinking.
I agree very much about the need of healthy families, and it is a wound of mine, so, I apologize if I come down with my judgements probably heady reflecting some alienation. I am longing for that happy family. But from family dysfunctions we learn also. We may eventually learn some humility, that is, that virtue of the heart that is free from judging ourselves more or less important.
Time to go to bed. Forgive my trespassing in your comfort zone or my blunt statements and blind spots.It is late…
Be well.
What future?
These boomers have left us nothing but scorched earth, debt and the probability of a premature death.
The only salvation i see is in expatriation.
As Shakespeare would say:
“A plague on both their houses, they have made worms meat of me”.
Thanks, I learned a new and highly interesting idea. The family is the cornerstone of each society and that should be taken into consideration at each step of any political process. In fact, it is. It can be neglected and the society commits suicide. It can be taken into account and the society might thrive. Doing the latter consciously is new to me.
Yes, the future does belong to those who make children. But controlling your children after they reach their teens, let alone adulthood, is problematic.
So the main weakness in the argument is the idea that children strictly adopt the values of their parents like robots. Alot of “secularists” became that way in reaction to overbearing religious parents. And I suspect the vice versa case to be true as well.
How about a simple rule: “when voting about country going to war, persons without children to be excluded” As for politicians, members of congresses and senates of the world, only ones with combat age children should be allowed to vote for ear path.
Keep one vote for everybody, only filter those who will likely not suffer, no matter what.
If we cannot prevent people from voting for war, how about law that all selected representatives, on all levels, from community centers to legislatures, get automatically attached to battlefront units? Presidents are assumed to spent war time closer to main theaters of operations, not in or around HQ places deep underground. Make them visit daily frontline units.
That would be and of political wars, eh.
Doesn’t the good book have the final say about what the future is going to actually bring/look like?
“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” Matt. 10:21-22
I/we should also love the words of Job:
“Now they mock me, men younger than I whose fathers I would have disdained to put with my sheep dogs.” Job 30:1
There was a reason as to why God tested and disciplined the Israelite’s lasting an excruciating 40 years before their entering the Promised Land. His blessings ultimately belong to those who love and obey Him. We need to be purified.
Religion has been divorced today however, from real political power the Creator Himself to just a thing of blind faith. It is unfortunately why climate change is the work of Industrial pollution and not as it was originally Divine Communication!
“He brings the clouds to punish men, or to water His earth and show His love.” Job 37:13
See, the storm of the Lord
will burst out in wrath,
a whirlwind swirling down
on the heads of the wicked.
The anger of the Lord will not turn back
until he fully accomplishes
the purposes of his heart.
In days to come
you will understand it clearly. Jeremiah 23:20
and there are hundreds more for one perusal….
English genius?
Or English pests whose parasitic existence is a mortal danger to nations after nations.
London and England lives off stolen money being brought by oligarchs from those countries which England has plotted to destabilize in last 30 years on a daily basis.
Those oligarchs are encouraged to come to England to deposit their stolen money in british bank. A real pig Pirate state.
Brits steal their resources, leaving an empty shell in the end.
That impoverishes those victim countries whose oligarchs have brought money to English pirates.
Fact is that 60 percent of english economy is money and drug laundering established by the english govt since ’80s. That is the reason refugees are created.. in victim countries whose creamy layer has been siphoned off to England pirate island.
(In 90s Russia was looted by England to tune of trillion of dollars so Russian poverty rate jumped from 1.5 % in S. U. time to 50 % in 90s) while London and British economy grows with only two recession in last 25 years.
UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak has promised an investigation into the revelations, but when asked whether he was ashamed that London is a haven for those looking to get out of paying their fair share, he said he was not.!!
To Englishmen, Well you plunder their land and resources, help to keep dictators in powers, create Taliban and ISIS to further your geopolitical agendas then what do you expect.?
kick England out of Europe completely. Do not encourage parasites in Europe.
American diplomat-scholar George Kennan once wrote about the oil reserves in Persian Gulf — they are “our resources”, he wrote, integral to America’s prosperity and, therefore, the US should take control of them. (Which it did, of course.)
Second, the England and usa spent decades contributing to regime change and destabilization in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa and South East Asia . We can’t help set someone’s house on fire and then blame them for fleeing.”
the Cayman Islands, Panama, Liberia and all the places that began to be set up by the mining companies, the oil companies and those that were set up beginning in the 1960s, essentially, by the CIA to finance the Vietnam War by making America, like England, the home for criminal capital and flight capital.
BTW – Immigrating to country X does not mean that you approve/like/are inspired by country X or its native people, this is especially true when country X is the one which destroyed your own country of origin.
Immigration is an extremely stressful exercise, even when done in very comfortable conditions, and even more so when done under adverse ones. Most immigrants are suffering stress/anxiety/PTSD/etc.
I coulⅾn’t refrain from commenting. Exceptionally well written!