Why are the SNP determined to self-harm?

That’s a good question. Once we get past the number disagreement – ‘SNP’ is singular! – it’s a very good question. It was asked by Mark Mair on a Facebook thread about the SNP’s appointment of Ricky Taylor as party’s new complaints officer. The first tranche of complaints this young person will have to deal with pertain to himself and various remarks he’s made about certain individuals whose names don’t feature prominently on Nicola Sturgeon’s Christmas card list. Names such as Joanna Cherry MP and Craig Murray. Taylor’s appointment is controversial. It’s not something that’s going to hog the headlines for a week. But among the more politically aware in Scotland it is safe to say that more than a few eyebrows were raised when he got the job. It was almost as if the party was courting controversy.

Ricky Taylor is trivial. What is significant is the fact that there have been so many things that might have prompted Mark Mair’s question. Of those who were perplexed by Taylor’s appointment I’m certain there are few for whom this was a novel experience. We’ve seen it all so many times before over the past few years. Decisions that make no discernible sense. Choices that are simply inexplicable. Things said that would have been better left unsaid. Things unsaid that desperately needed to be said. The impression that the SNP is intent on self-harm is strong.

The party leadership’s treatment of Ms Cherry is an illustrative example. Given her background and qualifications and experience and reputation, Joanna Cherry QC was an obvious choice for the SNP Westminster group’s justice remit. Rather less obvious are the reasons for her being unceremoniously dumped from that position. Then there’s my own personal favourite in the catalogue of oddities, Nicola Sturgeon’s letter to SNP members and, rather presumptuously, the entire Yes movement, ordering the indefinite suspension of all independence campaigning while she dealt with the Covid pandemic. The posturing, virtue-signalling, pointless stupidity of this still sets my head spinning whenever I think of it.

I’m sure everyone reading this will be able to think of a few examples of incomprehensible behaviour on the part of the SNP leadership in the past six or seven years. I’m betting the 2017 Westminster election campaign makes it onto most if not all lists. The decision to back off from the constitutional issue at that election is widely held to have cost the party dearly. Although I would insist the result wasn’t nearly as disastrous for the party as the British media and many in the Yes movement made it out to be, there is hardy any doubt that it was a peculiar strategy to adopt. One that was bound to alienate or at least disappoint, a significant part of the party’s voter base. One that might have caused folk to wonder if the party was determined to self-harm. Who hasn’t watched the SNP since Nicola Sturgeon became without wondering what the hell is going on?

I asked that question myself this morning when I read in The National that Nicola Sturgeon has invited Boris Johnson to face-to-face talks in Bute House. My immediate reaction was to ask why. Which is what I always ask about anything, of course. Why or when or who or WTF! I always have questions. But on this occasion I was asking why with an inflection suggesting irked puzzlement. It immediately struck me as a less than self-evidently wise move. And given that the First Minister was under no obligation to extend this invitation, even the slightest dubiety might be reason enough not to do it.

Of course, there might not be a reason. It would certainly be a mistake to always assume that there must be a clear motive and purpose for any action. The actor will generally suppose that they have a reason for doing whatever it is that they are doing. But it is far from certain that it will be a reason that everybody understands or thinks sufficient. One person’s considered action is another’s random act of utter folly. But sometimes even with our prejudices set as far to the side as possible we still can’t figure out what was going on in the actor’s head. Sometimes the motive is just too obscure and the rationale too arcane.

For me, it is beyond comprehension that, faced with what is admittedly a serious public health crisis, the de facto leader of Scotland’s independence movement’s first and only thought was to bring that movement to a complete stop, slap a disabled sticker on it and abandon it until further notice. There was nothing to suggest that so much as a moment’s thought had been given to the possibility of a more productive course of action. Or at least a less destructive one. To my mind, lockdown presented the Yes movement with an ideal opportunity to develop and hone its online campaigning capacity. With thousands of people on lockdown, there was a massive ‘captive audience’ ready to click on any link that could be made a bit interesting. For sure, the scammers recognised this solid gold lining to the Covid cloud. It didn’t seem to occur to Sturgeon or any of the of people who have her ear.

But she must have had her reasons. Mustn’t she? Her loyal followers were quick to offer rationalisations that were often even more contrived than they needed to be. The one about it being part of some great secret plan was among the least credible. More believable was the argument that her parking of the constitutional issue was intended to impress the ‘international community’. Sturgeon wanted to be able to say “See how statesmanlike [stateswomanlike? statespersonlike?] I am! See how I put the health and safety of my people before my political agenda!”. This seems plausible. Except that when we weigh this hope of winning the respect of the ‘international community’ against the potential harm to Scotland’s cause – and to Scotland – of indefinite delay, the favourable opinion of politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats in other countries doesn’t tip the scales. Unless, that is, you are the person set to benefit most from their good offices. Hmmm…!

Who does Nicola Sturgeon think she’s impressing by inviting the British Prime Minister to visit her at her official residence for ‘talks’? The same people? Perhaps. Maybe the invitation was issued without much thought at all. It is unfortunately easy to think of every move a politician makes as the product of Machiavellian calculation. It ain’t necessarily so! Sometimes politicians just do stuff. The same as the rest of us. A higher intelligence peering at humanity through a microscope would see something similar to what we see when we train our microscopes on pond-life. Being a higher intelligence it might be able to discern patterns in our twitchings and squirmings. But it wouldn’t be easy to make out any motive or purpose.

Maybe Sturgeon is planning on using this opportunity to beg Boris’s blessing for a new referendum. That would be just one more incomprehensible act of folly. But at least it would be a reason, no matter how unreasonable. I think we can discount the possibility that she craves his company. But the idea that she wants to discuss next moves in the game of chess both are playing against viral pandemics is hardly more credible. It is far too complex a subject to be dealt with meaningfully at a brief, semi-impromptu meeting. And if the idea is to try and agree broad principles, what would be the point? Boris would probably have reneged on any such agreement before he’d snuck out the back door of Bute House.

Is the invitation inviting a snub? In other words, is it an act of self-harm – witting or unwitting or witless? Such a snub would certainly fit the long since emerged pattern of behaviour of Boris and his gang. It has long been evident that the British political elite has been seizing on every opportunity to belittle and demean and delegitimise Scotland’s democratic institutions. Why would Boris not just tell Nicola to f*** off? That’s not how it would be worded, of course. But it’s how it would be heard by the audience he is playing to.

For that matter, what audience is Sturgeon playing to? If we reject the conspiracy theory that she is a British sleeper agent tasked with sabotaging Scotland’s independence movement along with our Parliament and much besides, then we have to suppose she is playing to some audience. She’s a politician! It’s what politicians do! What message is she trying to send and to whom?

Could the invitation to Boris Johnson have something to do with recent efforts to appear busy on the constitutional issue? If so, why was this not made explicit as the reason for the invitation? Superficially at least it looks more like something intended to persuade whoever she thinks she needs to persuade that she is focused on the pandemic and not being distracted by mere threats to Scotland’s democracy.

I think I may have found the answer to Mark Mair’s question. So long as he doesn’t mind me responding to a question with another question. Because I think he may be asking the wrong question. Rather than asking why the SNP seems determined to self-harm it might be more illuminating to ask how the party might avoid self-harm. When there is as much polarisation and tribalism as exists in the realm of Scottish politics then it’s impossible to do or say anything without offending at least one camp. If offending that camp is seen to be detrimental to the interests or reputation of the party then it inevitably looks very much an act of self-harm.

The great irony is that while Nicola Sturgeon can be said to be a main cause of the factionalism and polarisation – inasmuch as it has happened on her watch – it is the kind of situation she is least well equipped to deal with. A temperament tuned for conciliation and conversation and consensus is ill-suited to the fraught environment of polarised politics and tribal conflict. But I have to wonder if Nicola Sturgeon is even aware of this environment. She’s bound to know about it. But is she aware? Is she conscious of the fact that pretty much anything she does can be viewed from one perspective or another as an act of self-harm? Is she making calculated choices about which camp to alienate? Or is she lost in the belief that she can get by without confrontation and conflict?

Is that why the SNP appears determined to self-harm?



If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPal

25 thoughts on “Why are the SNP determined to self-harm?

  1. There is no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon’s behaviour does appear bizarre.

    The only other possibility that I can think of is that, somewhere after she announced the intention to hold a referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future in March 2017 Nicola Sturgeon lost her nerve.

    The calling of the 2017 UK general election caught her off-guard and she lost control of events (as well as votes and MPs).

    It may be that she concluded that the population of Scotland are just too flaky on supporting Independence (because large numbers stayed at home during that election). This may have propelled her towards the path of uber gradualism regarding Independence.

    In the same way that any British PM doesn’t want be the one to ‘lose’ Scotland (or any other territory that they control) perhaps Nicola Sturgeon, being cautious and conservative, simply doesn’t want to risk being the FM/person who lost the chance reinstate this country’s statehood.

    That is merely a theory in addition to the possibilities that you have outlined.

    If true, however, it would imply that the current FM would prefer to be the person who lost Scotland’s chance to regain its sovereign status through her – and her government’s – total inaction and, therefore, capitulation on the constitutional question.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Except that it is not only her government that she harms, is it? She is harming all of us who care about Scotland and Scotland’s future and the people who dwell in Scotland. That is where and when her behaviour becomes unforgivable. I don’t think it is at all strange, given the policies she has decided to espouse and those she has repudiated. I don’t think it’s strange that she should appoint a fresh-faced youth of little experience and even less thought who immediately attacks a woman who has just seen her seemingly dangerous attacker, also a fresh-faced young SNP enthusiast, handed down a sentence for quite unspeakable behaviour and who was never once been condemned by the party’s leadership before the case came to court.

    All her actions, including her insistence that the Scottish civil service now use pronouns consistent with what people claim to be without a modicum of actual proof to back those claims, are entirely and completely consistent with someone who is not a supporter of women’s rights, of clever people, regardless of sex, or of advancing young people who are not captured by the trans lobby. Above all, she is not an advocate of independence except when her instincts for political survival kick in and tell her she had better ‘do something’ to keep the hoi polloi in the movement from rebelling. Her vision of Scotland is one of endless devolution and subservience until the one is overtaken by Westminster’s ‘one state’ philosophy and disappears, and the other gains the subservient and obedient ones great rewards.

    You, Peter, have taken little interest in the trans lobby and what has been happening, so you will not have come up against that captured mindset. I sometimes compare it to Pol Pot’s young guards, or Mao’s young Red Guards or the fanatics of post revolution Russia or Nazi Germany, and I believe it is of the same order: a complete abdication of thought and will to something that is so patently dangerous and wrong-headed as to be akin to a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, which requires intensive therapy or a very profound shock to pull the person out of it. Once you realize that independence would be a huge distraction for her favoured, virtue-signalling policies, it all starts to fall into place: it is all about appearance and popularity and seat-warming longevity, and nothing at all to do with actually having to make the very difficult decisions that taking independence will require. None of them – those in her coterie – ever had any intention of bringing in independence on their watch unless it was handed to them on a plate by the blond one. The old guard in her coterie are the same ‘gently, gently catchee monkey’ ones who occupied the leadership before they were ousted by Alec Salmond, who might not have gained us our independence, but who did at least try, and who could never be accused of not being fully behind independence for his entire political career.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. “You, Peter, have taken little interest in the trans lobby and what has been happening…”

      Not true. I may have long refrained from participation in the ‘debate’ around these issues. But that should not be taken to mean I took no interest. I refrained from commenting principally because the ‘debate’ had descended into the kind of rabid squabble in which voices of reason struggle to be heard. Also because I feared that I would be drawn into time-wasting exchanges to the detriment of my focus on the constitutional issue.

      The restoration of Scotland’s independence is a radical act. I am persuaded that it will have far-reaching implications for every aspect of our politics. It will, I am convinced, provide both the opportunity and the impetus to break out of the toxic form of identity politics which has embroiled us all whether we choose it or not.

      Like

      1. Peter, it has descended into a toxic non-debate on one side only. No woman that I know of has ever said and done what the trans activists have said and done, and I fully realize how childish that could sound to anyone not on the receiving end of this, at its very essence, monstrous men’s sexual rights organization, lauded by the handmaids of queer theory and almost incomparably gross stupidity.

        What Joanna Cherry and many other women have endured is beyond any reasonable person’s tolerance. That was my point. Trans people already have all their human rights and civil rights. Now, many of them, whom I would not even consider to be trans at all, want to take all of ours, too. Any man worth the name should be ashamed that this is even happening. I certainly don’t exonerate the sisterhood either: many of them are worse than any male trans activist, which rather was also my point in reference to NS. Were this happening to men at the hands of women, I would be equally incensed, believe me.

        I absolutely agree with you that independence might well extinguish this pernicious attack on women’s human rights, but I wouldn’t be counting on it. This thing is bigger than Scotland, bigger than independence and, if the Unionists believe that we are a threat to them, they haven’t seen anything yet.

        What is required is that the coterie that pushes this nihilistic agenda is ousted totally, and the foot-draggers with them. If that doesn’t happen soon, or by some miracle, NS sees the light, the independence movement will split irrevocably. It is very difficult for so many SNP (or formerly SNP) women to understand how we have been betrayed by the party leadership and hierarchy; we who have never hesitated when the call went out; we who will be needed to rebuild a new Scotland. It is almost beyond belief. I’m not trying to harangue you. I know full well your absolute commitment to re-instating our independence, but this toxic lobby sees independence as the distraction, not the other way round – which is why we are where we are now.

        Liked by 6 people

      2. You bring clarity and passion to an otherwise arid ‘debate’. But I don’t wholly agree with blaming men. Not generally, anyway. If the generality of men are guilty of anything it is failure to engage with an issue that affects them profoundly, albeit in a very different way from women.

        The denial of sex as a legitimate and fundament category of human being is something that affects men to exactly the same degree as women. If it is ruled that we can no longer categorise people on the basis of their sex then this takes the same from both men and women. It hurts women more because there are more sex-based rights for women than there are for men. Or perhaps it would be more true to say that the law has to guarantee to women the kind of rights that men have always enjoyed.

        The long and the short of it is that men need to stand up for sex-based rights because they are human rights. We are all part of the same society. If that society is damaged, as I believe it will be by some of the ‘reforms’, then men lose out as well.

        Like

    2. lorncal; I am aware you think some may hold the opinion that you like the sound of your own voice. By the content and eloquence of your commentary it is essential that your voice is not muted by the ‘we will sort aw this stuff oot efter’ Independence brigade.

      Nicola Sturgeon quite clearly has no appetite for delivering Independence surrounding herself with biology deniers intent on destroying women’s rights and society as we know it. You are absolutely correct in your assessment of her stewardship and the charlatans within the SNP old guard who have facilitated her thus far.

      Sturgeon has proved herself a failure. Scotland must move on swiftly and resolutely lest we be subsumed by a lesser order.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thank you, Robert. This cannot wait to be sorted oot efter independence, as you say because it is bigger than independence and bigger than Scotland, and very dangerous to the whole of the West (and that’s just for starters). It absolutely amazes me that so many simply don’t see that.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. You, Peter, have taken little interest in the trans lobby and what has been happening,

      I’m afraid no matter what Peter says to the contrary IMO that statement was true , Peter deliberately avoided and made it clear to posters that he was NOT going to become involved in deep GRA discussion

      I am male 70 years old married with 1 daughter and 1 son and any male who ignored or refused to accept what was being pushed or forced on OUR females against their wishes and could not envisage or interpret the threat to their safety and wellbeing was either disinterested , complicit or stupid

      As you alluded to Lorncal it was the usual mantra of it can all be sorted after independence which was trumpeted by many avowed and fanatical SNP members and still is by the remnants , which allowed the lunatics to gain a greater hold and entrench themselves further

      I posted a few comments on WOS at the time and called for a demonstration at HR to show the opposition to Sturgeon’s proposals and those of her stormtroopers but some of the female posters disagreed and said that would be a last ditch action reserved to a later date

      I note that on different sites including Peter’s there are still posters who try to invent or construct excuses or reasons for Sturgeon and her destruction of the YES movement and support , her inability or downright refusal to forward indy , her inability or downright refusal to challenge WM on ANYTHING, her CRINGEING acceptance of the denigration and abuse shown to Scotland and Scots on a daily basis , her abject FAILURE to produce ANYTHING constructive to sway or convince no voters or undecideds that Scotland NEEDS independence to prosper , all sorts of excuses or reasons can be forwarded by the delusionists for Sturgeon’s failures , BUT they can NEVER explain why she unfailingly , aggressively and with TOTAL focus continues unrelentingly against public opinion to FORCE her deviant and perverted policies onward

      Liked by 1 person

  3. All we can do is look at the evidence.
    If Nicola Sturgeon is totally devoted to Scotland’s independence, she is the most incompetent leader Scotland has had since 1999.
    If she wanted to destroy the Yes movement and reinforce the primacy of Westminster over Scottish affairs, she has played a blinder.
    When she changed from supporting independence to being a devolutionist, I could not say. But I do not believe we will get event close to our independence while she leads the SNP.

    Especially since all the careerist drones who used to infest the Labour Party have now found a happy home in the SNP. They don’t care about independence any more than their predecessors cared about redistributing wealth – they are quite happy with the status quo.

    The only way the SNP leadership are going to do anything about independence is if Johnston were actually stupid enough to try to abolish Holyrood and threaten their comfortable lifestyles. IMHO.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Or perhaps if several thousand people turned up at Holyrood on 31 August and shouted so loudly she wouldn’t be able to ignore us.I’ve been saying for a couple of years now that progressing Scotland’s cause would require the clout of a united Yes movement kicking SNP arse. As I’ve been saying this I’ve watched the Yes movement fragment and crumble to the point where I doubt if any kind of unity is possible. Everybody talks about unity. Nobody is prepared to make the necessary compromises. They all want unity on their own terms.

      We’re fucked.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Peter: she is about to finalise an alliance with the Greens, who might yet turn out to be even more opportunistic and power-hungry (not to mention addicted to fat salaries) as the SNP coterie. You can shout all you like. She has turned a deaf ear to all ordinary members. She and her coterie require to be evicted, not lauded as the second Jacinda Ahern and her New Zealand queer theorists. New Zealand is an island. Scotland is attached to Big England. The only things we have in common are Scots reside in both countries (they tend to be successful there, oddly) they and we both have a female leader (she’s leader of an independent state, though, not a colony any longer) and each will probably destroy her country in the near future through her stupid virtue-signalling policies. This thing threatens the whole of the Western world, not just Scotland. Believe me, independence will be a dawdle compared to what is coming.

        Like

  4. A wise historian once remarked that people often know exactly what they are doing and also why they are doing what they are doing, but what they do not know is what that which what they are doing does. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and hardly anybody knows even what they are doing these days.

    What motivates Ms Sturgeon is a complete mystery to me, but I think you come close in your final paragraph.

    She may be trying to spin so many plates that she has delegated some of the work to others who have agendas of their own. In any event, I believe the whole sorry mess is probably an effect of an institutionalised ignorance of the effects of the institutions of state.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Peter thank you for all your efforts. The only thing that is keeping me from total despair over any hopes for Scottish independence in my lifetime is people like you. It’s certainly not the present SNP incumbents at either Holyrood or Westminster.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. To play devil’s advocate: Sturgeon is a lawyer so she is going to show she is doing as much as possible in a legal way to gain liar Johnson’s “permission” for indyref2 to be held, at the same time knowing full well liar Johnson will refuse. Then she can turn round to all of us and say, “Well, I tried the legal route, to no avail, so now there’s no alternative but to break Westminster’s laws and hold indyref2 anyway.”

    She’ll say all that knowing Westminster’s “permission” is not a legal requirement anyway.

    I’ve probably given her too much credit for ingenuity, but there’s always hope. Either way time is running out, along with Scots’ patience. If she doesn’t accept that fact then she’s either not fit for office or she really is a britnat sleeper.

    Like

    1. And what if the British call Sturgeon’s bluff? What if Johnson says yes? If what you suggest is the strategy then it is a very risky one. Because Johnson will only grant a Section 30 order if he is assured that the process can be sabotaged.

      And what’s the point anyway? We’ve already been through the request/refusal routine. Why do it again?

      And what can she do anyway? She has already effectively stated that that anything other than the Section 30 process is illegal and unconstitutional. She has closed off her options. She can’t do anything without being condemned by her own stupid pronouncements.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The process has already been sabotaged and it wasn’t by Westminster.

        We’ve had 7 years of Sturgeon saying “next year for sure” and claiming anything and everything as a reason or justification for independence but she’s never explained why.

        Now we need independence to recover from the pandemic but who’s going to explain that to the voters?
        SNP members and the whole Yes movement have allowed Sturgeon to become synonymous with independence in the minds of the majority of Scots. Until that changes, or she does, there can be no progress.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Peter: the trans issue is, indeed, about the two sex categories because we are a dimorphic species, whatever nonsense this lobby tries to peddle. there do exist sex conditions which can be ambivalent, but they are still on the male or female sex spectrum, and nothing whatsoever to do with gender, and, in any case, many aspects of gender actually attach to sex in way over 90% of the human race.

    The difference between the male and female categories of biological sex is that it is, by far, the women who are most at risk. We are not birds of prey where the females are considerably large and stronger, or insects where the females predominate. Sex-based rights for women attach to their womanhood or girlhood because their oppression – and that is what it has been until fairly recently when things have started to get better, and could become again if our rights are colonized by biological men – precisely because they are at risk of harm and injury from men who are, generally, far more powerful physically.

    Rape, sexual assaults, domestic violence (by and large, albeit I accept that women can also be guilty of this), suppression of opportunity, lack of educational opportunities, etc. have all been as a result of male oppression of females. To deny that is to deny reality, just as the trans lobby denies reality. Of course men’s rights are at risk, too, but are women going to colonize male intimate spaces or sports? It is unlikely, so trans men are never going to be a threat to men in the same way.

    What is very worrying for men and for lesbian women is the push to have trans women accepted as either straight women or as lesbian women, with the expectancy that they will replace women emotionally and physically or those who renege will be classed as transphobes and bigots. I’m afraid that all men have to accept that these trans women are biological men, and while some are definitely body dysphoric, the rest – and there are many of them, not the handful we were led to believe initially, are paraphiliacs and fetishists, while others are predators and misogynists, and they do pose a threat to women in myriad ways that trans men could never in a million years pose to men, although I will grant you that trans men, having taken testosterone, do actually show signs of aggression rarely seen in women.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. My invitation still stands.

      I know it is probably unlikely to touch the idiot ideologists of identity politics, but the demand that “trans women be women” not only flies in the face of mammalian sexual dimorphism, but also anthropology. In those cultures where “trans” people are accepted or celebrated, they are regarded as a having the combined powers of both the male and female essences, however these are defined within their cultures. In none of these, as far as I know, do these people demand to be accepted into either one of the dimorphous categories of mammalian sex, but instead adopt a third category of personhood. The demand that trans women BE women simply reiterates and sustains the same binary divisions the trans lobby appear to be complaining about.

      I don’t think anybody has any problems with gender diversity and sexual attractions between consenting adults with all manner of body parts, proclivities and desires, but the attempt to impose this diversity onto the materiality of being a “sexuate” human (to use Luce Irigaray’s description) is always going to be dependent on pharmaceuticals and persuading vulnerable and confused adolescents that their feelings can be sorted out by identifying as the other gender. Iain M Banks played with these ideas, but he was writing science fiction not political manifestos. And adults with an agenda advising children about their sexuality is surely just another manifestation of social pedophilia.

      Like

  8. As you are probably well aware Lorncal Stuart Campbell of WOS infamy was vilified , denigrated and reviled by lots of SNP members who proclaimed to be independence supporters , they were happy when Stu was destroying the lies and exposing the corruption of unionists but when he started exposing the lies , false promises and corruption of Sturgeon and her cabal he then became persona non grata and a traitor to Scotland and independence , his twatter and WOS continuous exposure of the GRA and trans bullying and aggression towards women issue IS one reason people have become more aware of the threat and danger this deviant lunacy poses towards women and children’s safety and security , yet still the SNP and Sturgeon apologists refuse to see the sickness infecting the independence movement

    Like

    1. Can’t disagree with any of that, Twathater except, maybe… “… the sickness infecting the independence movement… “. It is infecting the whole of Western society, and, independence or no independence, this stuff is a threat to the whole ethos of liberal Western society. I believe we will gain our independence, but not with NS and her coterie, not with the Greens, who are treachery incarnate, but, still, this stuff will be waiting for us on the other side of it. In the end, we may well lose, with the rest of the world’s Western society, the independence we so recently gained. Out of the frying pan straight into the fire. Stu Campbell continues to be a great loss to our movement and to a free society.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.