UPDATED 20/3: Saint Patrick's Day greetings to ye all!

Here we are again, another Saint Paddy's Day gone by and Eire still divided. Not that it matters as much as it did when you and I were young, Magee. Today's Ireland bears little resemblance to that for which our ancestors fought. 

Faith, didn't they elect a prime minister who's not only a brown furriner, but gay to boot! And didn't his very woke government just bring forward a prooposal to change the Republic's constitution away from traditional Christian family values? On March 8th, the government called on citizens to vote in two referendums called "the Family Amendment" and "the Care Amendment".

The first of these proposals asked to remove a reference to marriage as the basis "on which the family is founded" and replace it with a clause that says families can be founded "on marriage or on other durable relationships". Like "gay marriage", you see.

The care amendment proposed to remove women's role in the home, by deleting a statement that says "mothers shouldn't be obligated by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their home duties" and adding a clause saying the state will strive to support "the provision of care by members of a family to one another".  

Thanks be to God and the Blessed Virgin, the Plain Peepul of Ireland still have enough of the Faith to reject the proposed amendments. 67.69% of voters in the referendum said "NO" to the first amendment. The second, anti-family amendment, was rejected by 73.93%! Did the wokesters in Dublin really think the Irish were going to vote against motherhood?! 

Well, enough politics. To all the Irish -- including those who identify as Irish, those who feel like they're Irish, and those who wish they were Irish [and who doesn't?! Ed.] -- wherever they are -- in Derry, Sligo, Coleraine, Tullamore, Adjala Township and/or south Boston -- HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY TO YEZ. 

Recommended reading: na Gopaleen, Myles (pseudonym of Flann O'Brien): The Best of Myles, Picador 1977. 

In particular, Walt likes the chapters titled "The Brother" (how could yez not laugh?) and "The Plain People of Ireland". 

Many denizens of the auld sod won't be able to read the parts written in Irish Gaelic. [Faith now, I can't read it meself! Ed.] But the Irish are still the Irish, even if they live in a part of Ireland separated from the rest by the foreign (read: English) oppressors. God bless all of them, and haste the day that the Six Counties will be reunited with the rest of the country.

GREAT UPDATE added 20/3/24: "It's a long road that has no turnings." (Auld Irish saying.) Glory be! Ireland's "progressive" (read: woke as all get out) Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has announced he is resigning for "personal and political" reasons. 

This news comes less than two weeks after he was soundly defeated on a referendum (see above) to redefine marriage and the role of women in the nation's constitution. Click here to read the whole story on Breitbart News. St. Patrick must indeed be smiling on his people.

VIDEO: Hungarians overwhelmingly reject LGBT gender ideology

Further to "A victory for Christian democratic, conservative, patriotic politics", Walt is grateful to "CookeV" for posting this comment in the Globe & Mail report on the referendum which was included in this weekend's Hungarian election.

Along with the election, a referendum was held on four LGBT questions. There was a 50% voter-turnout threshold needed for the results to be valid, which was not met with the percentage sitting at about 44% as I write this. Nevertheless, of those 44% valid votes, here are the results: 

Do you support the holding of a sexual orientation session for minor children in a public educational institution without the consent of the parent? Yes: 7.66%, No: 92.34% 

Do you support promoting gender reassignment treatments for underage children? Yes: 4.11%, No: 95.89% 

Do you support the introduction of sexual media content to minor children that affects their development without restrictions? Yes: 4.68%, No: 95.32% 

Do you support showing media to minors showing gender change? Yes: 4.83%, No: 95.17% 

What's interesting was the spoilage rate at about 20%. Leading up to the referendum, LGBT activists had encouraged voters to spoil their ballots to prevent the 50% turnout threshold from being met. Which looks like is what occurred.

And yes, Ed. found a very appropriate video: "Jordan Peterson debunks leftist gender ideology in 8 minutes". Here it is.

What's the matter with Americans and Canadians that they can't see through this liberal "woke" plot to emasculate men and destoy what's left of our Christian civilization?!

Referendum on immigration? What a novel idea!

How would you vote, dear reader, if you were allowed by your country's political elites to vote in a referendum on how many immigrants (if any) your country should "welcome"? Would you vote for Biden-style open borders? Or would you say "None is too many!"? 

But you won't get to express your opinion at the ballot box, will you? Not in the AABC countries -- America, Australia, Britain and Canada -- whose leaders pay lip service to "the will of the people", but don't want to know about it, when it conflicts with their plans for the New World Order.

If you live in France, however, you may be able to have your say next year.  Marine Le Pen, leader of the Rassemblement National (National Rally), has promised that if she is elected president in 2022, she will call a referendum proposing drastic limits on immigration.

The question will be, "Do you approve of the Citizenship Identity and Immigration bill that will present a comprehensive immigration control plan?"

Mme Le Pen told the meeja that the referendum would propose a complete draft bill that would drastically regulate immigration. Her plan would impose strict criteria for entering French territory and for acquiring French nationality. As well, French citizens would have priority access to social housing, jobs and social security benefits. "Refugees" and asylum-seekers would go to the back of the line. Imagine that!

In addition, her plan would facilitate more deportations, and require applications for asylum to be made overseas. The last point is something that has been discussed previously by the Danish government in recent months, with the Danish parliament voting for a proposal in June that could see asylum claims processed in asylum reception centres abroad.

Mme Le Pen also vowed to halt family reunification migration also known as "chain migration", which often accounts for a large number of migrants accepted every year in various countries such as Sweden where they outnumber new asylum claims. Her plan also includes the end of birthright citizenship, by which a child born of foreign parents is automatically granted citizenship for being born within the country where the mother happens to be at the time of birth.

In 2017, Mme Le Pen made it to the second round of the presidential election, but was defeated by the  "centrist" Emmanuel Macron. Little Emmanuel has not yet said whether he will stand for re-election, but opinion polls show him and Mme Le Pen as the likely two candidates to make it through to the second round, with M Macaroon seen as the eventual winner. Of course pollsters, being part of the controlled media, have been known to fudge the numbers to paint the liberal candidate as a shoo-in over the "extremist".

It must be said, though, that the situation has become complicated this month by a possible presidential run of right-wing talk-show star Eric Zemmour, who could split the far-right vote and allow a centre-right challenger to face M Macron. While he has yet to formally declare his candidacy, the conservative writer and pundit has seen a surge in popularity, according to a report from Reuters. 

A Harris Interactive poll released this week puts him ahead of Mme Le Pen in the first round of next spring's presidential election, with as high as 18% in one scenario, two points ahead of Mme Le Pen but still nine points behind the incumbent Macron. A projected second-round run-off between would put M Zemmour at 45%, to M Macron's 55%. 

But (here's the good news), a second-round vote between Mme Le Pen and M Macron, would be closer. 53% of respondents said they would vote for M Macron in that case, with 47% preferring Mme Le Pen. In today's politics in a country like France, a 6% lead is nothing. One must also allow for the phenomenon observed in the USA, where many voters were reluctant to tell pollsters their intention to vote for the "extremist".

In her presser, Mme Le Pen said that her proposals were "firm but realistic, therefore politically and legally viable and therefore enforceable." She noted that other presidential candidates and potential candidates had adopted firmer stances on immigration as well. 

"I'm not worried," she said. "I am convinced the French people will place us against Emmanuel Macron because we defend very different models of society. He stands for unregulated globalisation, I defend the nation, which remains the best structure to defend our identity, security, freedom and prosperity."

By the numbers: "In 2021, 134,000 foreigners entered the EU clandestinely, 68% more than in 2020. In the central Mediterranean, which particularly affects Italy, we see an 87% increase in landings since the beginning of the year. Arrivals from Libya and Tunisia have doubled. We have recorded 48,000 entries." Source: Fabrice Leggeri, Executive Director of Frontex, the European Union border agency. Reported by Breitbart News, 10/10/21.

Wot? Brexit ain't done yet? Walt explicates the muddification

The story so far... Way back in June 2016, the people of the so-called United Kingdom got a rare chance to vote on an issue, as opposed to for or against a political party. After years of dithering, the Conservative government of the day, led by the Rt. Hon. David Cameron, called a referendum on whether or not the country should remain in the European Union. This was the result.

Instead of "country", let's say countries. London, the capital region (and (((international banking))) centre) voted to stay in the EU. So did Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The rest of England and Wales voted to take back control of Britain's affairs (particularly her borders) from the globalist Euro-weenies. Since there were more non-London English voters than all the others combined, the overall result was nearly 52% in favour of what became known as Brexit.

The first lesson the British people learned -- should have known already -- is that the people don't actually rule or govern anything. The ruling is done by governments, not the people wot put them there. So it fell to the government of Theresa May (who succeeded Mr Cameron, who had unwisely campaigned on the "remain" side) to make a deal with the other 27 (or so) members of the EU to put the borders back in place and disentangle the great ball of red tape devised by the Brussels sprouts.

A coalition of one-worlders, loony lefties and minor parties clamoured for a do-over of the referendum, and generally obstructed Ms May's efforts, so she called a snap general election in June 2017. It resulted in a Conservative minority government supported by the Ulster Protestant baskets who call themselves the Democratic Unionist Party.

Subsequent UK–EU withdrawal negotiations resulted in a withdrawal agreement in November 2018, but the UK parliament voted against ratifying it three (count `em, three) times. The Labour Party wanted any agreement to maintain a customs union, while many Conservatives opposed the agreement's financial settlement on the UK's share of EU financial obligations, as well as the "Irish backstop" designed to prevent border controls between Ulster and the Republic of Ireland.

Ed. here. I don't understand that last bit. You mean the Protestant Ulstermen refuse to be part of Catholic Ireland, but they don't want a hard border between the two parts of the island? Exactly.

In March 2019, the UK parliament voted for May to ask the EU to delay Brexit until October 31st, so a better deal could be sought. Having failed to pass her agreement, Ms May resigned as prime minister in July and was succeeded by the Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson. He sought to replace parts of the agreement and vowed to leave the EU by the new deadline, with or without an agreement. On October 17th, his government and the EU agreed on a revised withdrawal plan, with provisions for a special status for Northern Ireland. The British parliament approved the new agreement, but rejected plans to pass it into law before the Hallowe'en deadline, and forcing Mr Johnson's government to ask for a third Brexit delay, to 31 January 2019.

So everything's fine now, right? Ed. Errr, no. Having suffered a couple of defections along the way, Mr Johnson heads a minority government, dependent on the support of the DUP. With no guarantee that the enabling legislation will be passed by March 31st... or ever... Mr Johnson wanted an election to put an end to the uncertainty, one way or the other. The head of the Labour Party, Jeremy Lenin [Corby, shurely. Ed.] refused, but on Tuesday did a flip-flop and directed his members to join the Tories in approving an early election to break the deadlock. Brits will go to the polls on December 12th. Merry Christmas! [Happy Holidays!, shurely. Ed.]

Brexit has turned into a tussle for the soul of the country, and will be the main issue on which weary voters will have to decide. Mr Johnson's Conservatives tout his deal with the EU and claim they can get Brexit done at last, while Comrade Corbyn's Labourites are promising to negotiate a "softer" Brexit, following which they will give the British public the final say by... wait for it... holding a second referendum!

Will this vote break the Brexit deadlock? Who knows? [Certainly not you! Ed.] The rise of smaller parties means the possibility of a hung parliament is greater now than in previous decades. If the December election fails to deliver a party with an overall majority, Brexit could go in a number of different directions. A hung parliament with a minority Conservative government would likely mean more of the same paralysis that has dogged British politics for the past year. If Labour emerges as the largest party, that makes a second Brexit referendum more likely, given that's also the ambition of the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party.

And even if the Conservatives won a majority on the back of their promise to "get Brexit done," the saga won't be over. Mr Johnson would be able to get his deal through Parliament by the next deadline, but that's only the start. Months of negotiations with the EU about a future trading partnership would certainly follow, and the risk of a no-deal Brexit could return all over again if a trade deal isn't concluded by the end of the Brexit transition period in 2020. So while this vote will likely set a new Brexit course for Britain, it would be naive to think the issue will be off the agenda by the beginning of 2020. We wish all our British readers a Happy New Year!

Scottish independence referendum

Agent 6 writes to say that if Theresa May is returned to power in tomorrow's UK election (see "British election too close to call?", earlier today), her next big challenge will be the demand of the Scottish National Party for another referendum on independence for the land of Robbie Burns.

If, in the referendum, Scotland should vote for independence, what's left of the United Kingdom will be known as the "Former United Kingdom", or FUK.

In a bid to discourage the Scots from voting "Yes" in this referendum, Theresa May will campaign with the slogan "Vote NO, for FUK's sake."
She feels Scottish voters will be able to relate to this.

VIDEO: Groundskeeper Willie gives his views on Scottish independence

A couple of days ago, Walt called the United Kingdom the "Soon-to-be-disunited Kingdom". I'm following closely the referendum to be held in Scotland this coming week on whether or not it should "be an independent country". The question seems clear enough. The number of votes needed to secede has been agreed -- 50% + 1. And if the Scots vote to leave the UK, 18 months has been allowed in which a peaceful separation will be negotiated.

But can Scotland make it on her own? Here's what The Simpsons' Groundskeeper Willie has to say.



Note from Ed.: Hey, just because it's all over the Internet doesn't mean we can't use it here!

Playing the "Hitler card" in the debate over the Crimea

Everybody's doing it. Hellery Clinton did it. John McCain did it. Steve Harper did it. John "Nancy" Baird did it. Even Walt may have done it. [Ed., please check.] What's "it"? Comparing Putin's annexation of the Crimea -- to be confirmed by the illegal "referendum" in progress today -- with Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938.

Little did I know, when I wrote what I wrote [Ed., please check.] that "playing the Hitler card" has been done so much in the last half-century that an American lawyer by the name of Mike Godwin has formulated a law which defines it. I learned this reading "The Hitler analogy", by CBC Radio's Michael Enright. The article, which I assume was the script for today's Sunday Edition, is so good that I'm going to copy the whole thing below. I hope CBC won't mind.

For the past couple of weeks, we have been subjected in our media to a perfect unfolding of Godwin's Law. We have seen it illustrated by Hillary Clinton, Stephen Harper, Senator John McCain and Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird.

Each of these worthies has compared Russian President Vladimir Putin's adventurism in Ukraine and Crimea to Adolph Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938.

Godwin's Law or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies states, roughly, that in any discussion of a controversial subject, sooner or later somebody will make the comparison to Hitler and Nazism. Right-wing commentators follow up the Hitler/Putin reference by describing the West's anemic response to appeasement. We are back in 1939.

In my conversation with Russian expert Charles King last week, Professor King said nowadays in any international crisis, "You don't have countries going to war, you have analogies going to war."

The American lawyer and writer Mike Godwin formulated his thesis in 1990 after listening to Hitler comparisons on internet newsgroups. It is also known by other names; playing the Hitler card, for instance, and "reductio ad Hitlerium".

Another name for the practice is association fallacy. Which means, if I understand it, to ascribe behaviour we don't like to Hitler. For example, Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is a bad thing. He was in favour of euthanasia, therefore euthanasia is wrong.

One result of this so-called fallacious analogy is to effectively and immediately shut down debate. If you or your argument is compared to Hitler and Nazism, there is very little incentive to continue arguing your point. There is no place to go after dropping the Hitler bomb.

In addition, it demonizes your opponent in debate. Nobody likes any association with Hitler or being called a Nazi. That's the reason that not many baby boys are being christened Adolph these days.

Putin has no intention of trying to conquer Europe, as far as I know. Nor is it part of his geopolitics to contemplate wiping out millions of Ukrainians, as Hitler did with Jews.

The whole idea of reductio ad Hitlerium was coined by the conservative philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951. He called it a fallacy of irrelevance. Not only irrelevant, but in the arena of high diplomacy, downright useless.

Without question Putin's moves have heightened world tensions...and it seems to make some kind of sense for Western powers to respond; but playing the Hitler card gets us nowhere.