One of the most admirable and worthwhile statement that I appreciated is the idea of parents must be whom lead and be responsible how to bring up their children and not the state and I would say also neither the state nor the big companies or new ideologies.
So you don't want good!public schools,healthcare for your kids, after school clubs, sports for kids nor public transport for them nor any childcare help or provisions?
Always a pleasure to listen to Jacob Rees-Mogg, even though I am not British. You can always learn something useful from his speeches, and I wish the UK media and population would do the same, instead of making deceiptful headlines from parts of his speech (taken out of the context) or concentrating more on some heckler than the actual speech. In any case, although I was happy to see Jacob as a minister, I think he is more useful to conservatives and UK as a whole when he is not in the government. As a backbencher he is not bound by the political agenda of the government and can freely express his thoughts. It's annoying how much hate JRM gets. You can agree or disagree with Jacob Ress-Mogg. At the end of the day, he is a conservative, and you shouldn't be surprised, that his ideas are conservative ideas. But he is not a typical American-style populist right-winger without any deep thoughts
I'd never come across this convention before YT sent me a link to these videos. I've heard some revelatory stuff. Why is this kind of thing not reported on by the media, BBC etc? I suppose I know why.
I hope you know jacob, that the only way to save the conservative party is by you being leader of the party. I must have heard a million times that people will only vote Tory with JRM at the helm. The Tories have lost the trust of the people. In YOU we trust.
He was in cabinet tasked implementing policies etc and he was quite simply useless. I think he likes the history and theatre of politics, and speaking in 18th century prose etc, but he never got anything done .
@@evolassunglasses4673 That’s the problem with this present 2019 Conservative government. Even with a huge majority they never got anything done in parliament. The most incompetence was our border, fishing waters, Northern Ireland etc. Boris inexplicably withdrew the internal market bill, that would’ve guaranteed trade between NI and GB etc. The whole ineptitude of the appointed cabinet was staggering.
Sunak is a Goldman Sachs globalist, so it's what you'd expect to hear from a billionaire globalist banker. He was inserted into his job, not elected. The UK is being screwed by marxists, globalists, communists, and the degenerate looney left wokes, but Sunak couldn't care less.
We left the EU but still live under the Global American Empire and its open borders Globalisation project. We got captured in 1945 and never broke free.
Protectionism is a poor system ? Well when you have outsourced all your skilled labour to the CCP, sold off all your infrastructure/assets and buy all their products, dont come crying when you get CCP 2.0 imposed in the UK, all because you allowed yourself to be subjugated through foreign dependancy and asset stripping. There are some areas that must be protected as a matter of national security. But then you would have to isolate local/domestic/global free markets and apply them where appropriate. All of which could be done by enforcing foreign companies to create branches in the UK in order to trade in the UK. Might even get some taxes paid.
If National means relying on people like Reese-Mogg I am an internationalist. If it is parents who lead ad be responsible, where does Nanny fit in to that?
Power comes from the bottom up. It certainly doesn't feel like it at present, and this under a Conservative government. Nevertheless, an excellent speech. I just wish it was reflected in today's government.
Having listened to Jacob for years I am convinced he would be a fantastic Prime Minister. He is very wise, knowledgeable and sensible and really cares for those who are struggling but some people cannot see past his ‘posh’ voice and upbringing. It is a form of prejudice against being well read and educated.
Nope. People dislike him because they know he is a self serving disingenuous entitled liar. There are many agregious things mogg has said and done. I could write a very long list. Problem is those who do believe him believe the long words the faux intelligence. One simple thing here would be a point on the family. Any check of his voting record shows he has always voted against anything that makes people's lives better or easier. He was recorded as saying he wants holiday pay removed,he votes against a better living wage. So tell me how do parents take their kids on holiday who looks after them in school holidays how do they feed their kids on minimum we and when they're work to live how do they look after their kids. There are so many lies half truths he has told it's surprising anyone still believes him
Massive arse... He (and his father) have been at the heart of the conservative governments which have done such massive damage to this country...Not partisan, fuck both parties...
What the Hell would JRM know about actually governing? The moment he was given actual jobs to do instead of sniping from the backbenches he failed comprehensively and disastrously.
Did Mogg say, "stunning achievement of Brexit"? It was managed so appallingly and badly by the Tories, that you have to ask did we really get what we voted for?
This sovereignty has been blocked by subsequent left wing government and is currently being accelerated by left wing mayors & councils. They have managed to progress their agenda almost to a point of no return. History tells us that anarchy does not erupt until the state has passed the point of control and the ending is always the same. Pain for the politicians and pain for the people. Many years will pass before the constitution is restored & people allowed to live in peace. There are two force at work in this era unlike other times. Immigrant culture and government. It will end in civil war between the 3 parties. Sharia, constitution and UNITED NATIONS one government
Sorry but you have no excuse all that you talk about has been done during a Conservative administration. You can certainly talk the talk Jacob but it's been proven you can't walk the walk. My usually Tory vote will be moving elsewhere. Sorry.
As ever brilliant and informative. A pity he cannot encourage he rest of the Conservative Party to return to this fundamental mindset. The surrending to the EU, ridiculous education, over - taxing, not controlling borders... and much more..... so much for the nation state being in total control doing the will of the people. The government is doing its own thing to the detriment of the people and expecting the people to pay whether they want it or not
Cough....there's some other teachings of Aquinas (The Angelic Doctor) that perhaps more Conservatives should read....his observations on Mohammed and his followers for example and why they exhibit certain proclivities. .
The Aquinas reference 1:00 is the question: "On War" (De bello) in Summa theologica II-II, q.40. There are legitimate but limited just causes and proper conduct of soldiers in war. In Article 2 though, it is not permissible for bishops and clerics to engage in “warlike pursuits” because this is conduct incompatible with: their “contemplation of divine things”(ref.2 Timothy 2:4); and their ministry of the alter in the sacrament, as portraying the shedding of the blood of Christ, means its “unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood” (ref. 1 Corinthians 11:26). Later Question 10: “Unbelief in General” it is permissible to forcibly compel apostates and heretics to remain “in the fold”, but not to compel non-believers to embrace the faith. Only persuasion is permitted here. Yes, Aquinas (1225-1274) certainly wrote one the most influential texts on war. Its in a section of his huge "Summa theologica" (1268-71), 2,000 pages long, written in the time its take to write a PhD these days. Instead of chapters, the book divides into numbered questions, "Quaesto". Its structured dialectically: that is a question concerning some subject is proposed in a way that makes a claim. Then objections are made against the propositional claim, and finally the objections are met. The content then draws heavily on previous authors positions on various points and central is Aristotle and of course the Bible. Each claim then is not just some definition or mere inheritance but exists within an historical structure that reaches back in history and argument. It seems to me a mistake to just take the claims in abstraction from this historical meaning laid out in the question the objection and the reply. There is then a certain coherence to the work, each claim is within a connected system, and must be connected to, not abstracted from, the rest of the text for its understanding. The question: "On War" (De bello) is Summa theologica II-II, q.40. It asks whether, and under what conditions war can be just cause, and what would be just conduct in war. Central are the notions of intentions will morality. Indeed in "The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings" (Eds. Reichberg, Syse, Begby 2006), question 40 "On War", is placed within the context of other questions, q. 29 "On Peace", q. 41: "On Strife" q. 42 "On Sedition", q. 50: "The different Kinds of [military] Prudence", q. 123: "On [battlefield] Fortitude", q.64: “On Murder” Art. 7 Killing in self-defence, q. 188: “Of the Different Kinds of Religious Life” Art. 3: Whether a religious order can be directed to soldering”. q. 10 Art. 8: Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith? and in the context of relations to the state in Aquinas earlier work "Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard" "The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings" (Eds. Reichberg, Syse, Begby 2006)(pgs 169-198)
Note: A hypothetical medieval question can be raised concerning the context of Aquinas views on Just War, something like: Is it the subject that is always wrong in a judgement of a case under law? That is the part of the context of his discussion of the principles and rules of Just War has to be its application. The application of such principles and rules of ethics and morality Aquinas places not only in the individual’s character and reason but also in the context of a legal system and the tradition of Natural Law. Firstly he distinguishes between Speculative Reason and Practical Reason: Speculative Reason is to understand Being and is organised from very general and universal principles that are self-evident and indemonstrable, and which all men agree on, such as: “the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time” since this at once of the distinction between Being and non Being. There are other more specific principles such as “Man is a rational being” and “every whole is greater than its part”. From these common principles are derived, like in mathematics or theoretical work, special specific and particular conclusion about real cases. Practical reason in the case of human action is partly modelled on this, so concerning beginnings must deal with the general and universal, however, Practical Reason is not about Being but action and its object is the Good. There are then, general and universal self-evident statements with this that all men agree on: “good is that which all things seek after” as a description of fundamental essential nature, and Principles that follow from it as self-evident: “good is to be done and ensured and evil is to be avoided”. Aquinas views man and action as inclination and intention, towards ends/goals, and in this man reasons from principles to action towards objects. So from the first it follows “man has an inclination to good in common with all substances and so seeks self-preservation”, and in respect of him specifically and of specific cases. (This to me means he is in some way correct to place Being as privileged over non-Being, “The Ontological Argument”, since here we could say a particular good must be privileged over The Good and its contrary, which is fundamental but not absolutely independent of theoretical reason.) However there is a fundamental difference from speculative reason in the “application” of agreed universal principles of practical reason to cases. Unlike in theoretical reason, man in practical reasoning can have their ability to recognise the good object goal in a specific case because his reasoning can become defective due to impediments brought on in the sphere of from generation to corruption by “distorted by passion, or by evil habits, or by bad natural relations”. He gives the example quoted by Julius Caesar that the Germans “failed to recognise theft as contrary to justice”. Aquinas’s point is that even if people recognise and agree on universal principles, their intentions and objects of specific actions, are shaped by their character: there capacity for Virtue and Vice, there exercise of Virtue in action, and recognition of the good, is and has been shaped and embedded within past habits. Thus rational human beings can deliberate from principles they agree on but arrive at different and so, for some, incorrect conclusions. This is traditionally understood to mean the theoretically competent agents of institutions can work out correct laws as derivations from principles and virtuous administrators and judges can work out correct application down to specific cases of action. A subject’s deviation from this standard then indicative of bad character, intention and past bad habit and a priori evidence of sin. I guess from Aquinas, one reason why the instituional people don’t go to war is that it might affect their ability to maintain the standard of good conduct in cases for everybody else to measure up to. It appears to give a kind of a priori condition of the possibly of law, that we privilege a certain intellectual and virtuous class as necessary standards for the possibility of recognition of cases under the law. Of course today people are not only suspicious of universal natural law principles (even in logic, mathematics and science since the late 19th century), but they are also sceptical that there is such a higher class of people whose character purposes and habits constitute both action in virtue and a standard of judgement in cases the subjects must take as such. Disagreement over cases might not just be between different subjects under a higher a priori standard but also between those that apply the law and those under it, wherein it would be an open question whether the person in error and corrupt character and bad intention bad is the instituional person or the subject. Indeed to take Aquinas’s example one might wonder if Julius Caesar is such a higher standard by which we judge his “Germans” as corrupt. Maybe following the invasion of their forests they were starving and nicking stuff off of the aristocratic Romans. I think Aquinas thought the concept of theft did not really apply singularly as a rule if you were starving, rather than being exception to the rule. I think it’s about action and virtue understood within a total context. So in the modern case of the off duty policeman who, while driving around town, noticed a wanted fugitive from Justice, and so stopped his car and arrested him. Drawing the arrest got a double yellow line “parking” ticket that he had to pay. Now the arrest I think does not so much mean he should have had an “exception” from the parking ticket, rather the context of the judge of the cases as a whole means he should not be punished for this at all since the whole thing is under the higher principle it forgets or shrinks the double yellow line “parking”. Now people are rightly concerned that this will allow all kinds of “excuses” and corrupt strategies of “double effect” to become open. You know “I thought that a fugitive from justice was in the shop gov.”. Indeed such a possibility was raised by Harriett Harman in the Boris Johnson number 10 cake party case enquiry. But while there is there risk of vice of use of double effect and excuse of context “as a whole of the law” for subjects, there must also be the higher mirror image vice of this: the instituional application of minute laws “parts of the law” in extremely complex situations of intentional goal orientated action. Phillip Bobbitt said something like the laws in Hell are the same as the laws in heaven but applied with absolute strict adherence to law. (References are Summa theological II I, Question 94 Articles 2 and 4. There is a very nice 3 page edit of the main passages in Peter Singer (Ed) “Ethics” (Oxford Readers 1994 pgs 247-249)
Part A1: It was a number of philosophical and political cultural events that ended the dominance of Aquinas and medieval scholasticism in Europe. Now called the Renascence brought about the debate between the late medieval notions of man the world the cosmos and God and the beginnings of modern science. This was later described as debate purely between an earth centred universe and a sun centred universe that it was claimed by observation calculation and experiment Galileo won in “proving” the later true or best model compared to the former. The myth is though that the debaters on the side of the Church were bereft of knowledge of modern science and mathematics but this is manifestly untrue they were also experts. Indeed Galieo’s account of inertia is not a correct account against the medieval theories off impetus. The scholastics were wrong to pin everything on the debate over the model of the solar system. Moderns took this as not only a Critique of the scholastic model but of Aristotle and Aquinas in general. The scholastics fought the battle in the wrong field. Only one seems to have had the relation the central issue was really over the notion of the cosmos as essentially movement from potentiality to actuality, determined by an end, a purpose, an intentional cosmos verses a universe determined by prior law like causes determined mathematically though algebra and geometry. They were not though in a position to articulate this effectively. Later it would emerge as really a debate between the possibility of human purpose, intention, action, will, freedom and responsibility, verses a “clockwork” mechanical universe in which everything is determined externally though relations and prior causes. This would become a debate about an organism as a whole and a mechanical model made up of parts, along with a massive cosmological shift “From a Closed World to an Infinite Universe”. This problem is still with us expressed as usually between individual freedoms and determining external laws. And ironically the question of a universe of purpose has not being wholly rejected but rather transposed into economic and political purpose again though external to individual freedom and purpose except indirectly as a aggregate of all purposes (Mill Sedgwick ect.) or as the need for an absolute universal imminent/transcendent purpose in Political theology (Schmitt). Its contemporary version is modern between competing notions of progress e.g. particular State economic progress and competitions verses all states under a universal zero carbon progress. Or between State progress in utility verses progress in and towards universal Human Rights. Of course in all these the questions of the being of man and the individual is only mediatly given as dependent on the various conflicting transcendent infinite purposes. Cultural and politically then there was of course the Protestant Reformation the Thirty Years War and the Hobbesian State verses Grotius International law. The replacement of the Church and Aristocracy as the main instituional power by the merchants the manufactures, scientific institutions and democracy.
Part A2: Aquinas on Logic Language and Science But already at the beginning of the Enlightenment, some philosophers are aware here are still live arguments in play here. So Kant for example: although he rejects the Ontological Argument on logic linguistic and knowledge grounds, there is an awareness, since these structures only determine representation, that this is not really the proper context or terrain to debate the question of Being. Kant’s 18th century position that “Being is not a predicate” is repeated again in the terms of modern logic and language from the turn of the 19th century in Frege, and developed into a position of ontological relatives though logic and language posits or posits from the use of binding Existential and Universal Quantifiers: “To be, is to be the value of a bound variable”. There have indeed been more wider scoped Thomism Critiques of these positions that attempt to deal with this by showing that the fields of epistemology and now language and logic have to presuppose a deeper level of Existence than what appears at the surface of propositions. Many of the philosophers doing this were students of Wittgenstein or influenced by him. So Anscombe, Geech, Kenny, and Sellars take this up in various ways around Universals etc. McDowell in “Sellars’s Thomism” writes “Bennett describes his practice as studying old texts “in the spirit of a colleague, an antagonist, a student and a teacher”. He quotes H. P. Grice saying: “I treat those who are great but dead as if they were great but living, as persons who have something to say to us now(Learning from Six Philosophers).”. (McDowell “Having the World in View”(2009 p.g. 254)) (see Wilfred Sellars “Being and Being Known”; Herman Weidemann “Socrates est/ “There is no such thing as Pegasus”: Thomas Aquinas and W. van Orman Quine on the Logic of Singular Existence Statements”(in Contemporary German Philosophy Volume 3 (1983 159-178)) Lets explore some examples to partially compare Aquinas to the modern 20th century. The ontological argument begins “The fool has “said” in his heart that God does not exist”. Now we might compare this to “The fool say to himself that Pegasus exists”, and “The fool thinks that chair exists before me”, and “The fool says “there is a chair before me (us)”. These examples allows us to contrast some views. So for Plato any actual particular object we can see and comprehend and talk about can only be so by virtue of its participation “in” “with” or “under” a perfect ideal form of that object that both pre-exists the actual material sensible object and our comprehension of it and our talk about it. Aquinas found this kind of transcendent realism unacceptable. For Aquinas we first encounter material objects as individual substances but though the mind’s grasp of them through substantial forms. Our sensibility is attuned to such individual substances not mealy as receiving or reflexing individual cause impacts but as intentionality directedness towards the object not capturable as subject to a material cause, but as the actualisation of the sensible capacities. But this is not as such independent of minds “inner” faculties of memory imagination and phantasy: these both allow the retention of past images and their link to intention i.e. as the substance’s particular effective powers of activity. The ability to see think and say the chair over there involves the intellect that can actualise its potential viz a vie the very object before me and similar ones by a power of abstract that affords recondition. Pegasus is a creation of the imagination alone and the non-existence of God is a phantom of the imagination alone. What comes first is not perfect forms but our encounter real material substances with form that we then by abstraction get to comprehend and with language “say”. Gods role in this is prior but in terms of actuality from potentiality. Not prior independent Platonic Existence. This was part of a heated debate in medieval scholasticism between Ibn Sina Avicenna and then Ibu Rushd Averroes and finally various nominalist critiques from Scotus and Oakham. Before becoming so complex and incomprehensible by the time of the reformation that no lay person could really give a toss. (My translation of Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy "Aquinas" )
Part A3: Now McDowell takes up this discussion with reference to 20 th Century linguistic philosophy and specifically “Sellers Thomism”. McDowell notes that Sellars has a notion of a word in dot quotes e.g. *chair*. This is the idea that there is an inner act of thought that is a kind of inner private speaking a thought but not said a tacit covert or implicit active silence mental act by analogy with the word said “chair”. This is traced in Sellers by McDowell and Brandon through the Wittgenstinian Peter Geech “Mental Acts”, to Aquinas. In Sellers then “the mighty dead” are invoked to address problems from the enlightenment and in the twentieth century they had thought had been dealt with but returned and so made medieval thought no longer a matter of inactive passive curiosity but still in play and effective history. McDowell takes this up to question Sellers as having to hold a kind of private language with its semantics, as well as public language of discourse with its semantics. We can put it thus that if I think privately *Pegasus*,then how can I know this has the same meaning as my saying “Pegasus”, since in this case the problem is clear because there is no real object or substance Pegasus as a particular of a class of winged horses, to ground the isomorphism between *Pegasus* and “Pegasus”. At once then the question of a private or idiosyncratic subjectivity and its relation to publicity (objectivity or agreement). It open up questions about criteria for the legitimacy of the private subjectivity in terms of agreement and standards of publically recognisable objectivity. Its also though raises another unacknowledged mirror or reverse question about the validity or legitimacy of the public language as a standard for the private language. As Paul Richour points out the metaphor problem goes both ways. McDowell is gesturing to the apparent possibility not just of two spaces of reason: the space of causal laws of nature @chair, and the space of semantics the meaning of chair: but the later as the space of a private semantics *chair* and public semantics “chair”. We might, in a gesture to express the apparent possibility of also Platonic realm here the hyper public or super public or universal space of ideal perfect univocal meaning a logical mechanical language a progressive utopian or maybe an actualised artificial #chair#, which would then make it appear that “chair” is meaning only within a particular language, and *chair* cannot possibly mean anything. Now part of the 20th century background to this is the very general question of 20 th century philosophy of language and semantics to even be able to express this problem in n its own terms at all that is the analytic field of meaning here is too narrow and abstracted from context to deal with settling these issues, even expressing them in its own frame of reference or methodology at all. There is not an internal problem here to be solved rather we need the realisation that the 20th century frame itself is the problem. Really this not problem solving or project saving approach become one of problem dissolving and project collapsing, to be replaced by something else, or maybe a return to older approaches. The invocation of the greats of the past, the announcement of their death was exaggerated and their contemporary irrelevance was premature.
Part A4 There are a number of routes that challenge the linguistic sematic approach altogether. i ma interested in ones that link this as really ground already in Practical Reason. That is the view of a stand alone Speculative Reason e.g. now logic language epistemology science (Law, economic theory psychology sociology etc) is a myth. But the failings of these abstractions can actually be expressed from within its errored position.ie from within the main guy on this Quine and his terms. A long quote from Walter Farrell "A Companion to the Summa: Volume I The Architect of the Universe. (Sheed and Ward (1941)) "We have some idea of the impossibility of unified government and law without the fundamental unity of a common end among the citizens; for without that unity of end, which is the source of the common life, the root of the community, the brick and mortar that holds society together, there would be no game of politics to be played. With this conception of government our time, and particularly our country, has no quarrel what so ever. Perhaps this age will be outstanding in history for its universal acceptance of these fundamental notions of government; certainly never before in the history of the world has there been such a universal championship of government’s proper act of law. As evidence of this we have the naïve faith in the power of law which has lead us into a kind of mass production of law for a variety of purposes that staggers the mind. We have made use of the law for the correction of every kind of evil, economic, financial, physical moral and social, and this in such meticulous detail as to make ourselves somewhat ridiculous. We do, indeed, believe in law and the power of law. As a last, if perverted, tribute to this championship of government we have the world wide drift to the absolute in the state, even among nations who fight absolutism. Our modern almost worshipful attitude towards science is a recognition of the proper act of government in the physical universe and on a world wide scale."
There's a great documentary on RUclips from 1966 where it tells you what insults you can expect to get from communists. They include Nazi, Oppressors and many more that you idiots use. Shame you're not old enough to have lived in NAZI Germany. Maybe then you'd take a different view.
@@paulmetcalfe6855 maybe if you had some lessons on oppression and didn't conflate that with communism of any ilk and a good old amount of German history you'd have more awareness
I vividly remember the SS leader speaking about free trade. Seriously, you read the word 'national' and your brain cannot separate it from anything else.
One of the most admirable and worthwhile statement that I appreciated is the idea of parents must be whom lead and be responsible how to bring up their children and not the state and I would say also neither the state nor the big companies or new ideologies.
So you don't want good!public schools,healthcare for your kids, after school clubs, sports for kids nor public transport for them nor any childcare help or provisions?
He blends traditionalism with compassionate conservatism.
The state must untangle itself from corporations.
Always a pleasure to listen to Jacob Rees-Mogg, even though I am not British. You can always learn something useful from his speeches, and I wish the UK media and population would do the same, instead of making deceiptful headlines from parts of his speech (taken out of the context) or concentrating more on some heckler than the actual speech.
In any case, although I was happy to see Jacob as a minister, I think he is more useful to conservatives and UK as a whole when he is not in the government. As a backbencher he is not bound by the political agenda of the government and can freely express his thoughts.
It's annoying how much hate JRM gets. You can agree or disagree with Jacob Ress-Mogg. At the end of the day, he is a conservative, and you shouldn't be surprised, that his ideas are conservative ideas. But he is not a typical American-style populist right-winger without any deep thoughts
I agree 1 million percent about the hostility to the family.
A very informative speech.I am wavering.
We've been moaning about EU regulations since Drop The Dead Donkey. Such a terrible decision not to cut them.
Which ones us it you wish to cut??
You should have credited Farage.
Bravo!
I'd never come across this convention before YT sent me a link to these videos. I've heard some revelatory stuff.
Why is this kind of thing not reported on by the media, BBC etc? I suppose I know why.
I believe this is the first ever conference. I think gbnews had conversations about it
Brilliant, Aquinas-family-Fortescue, important to understanding our opposition today, now what?
I hope you know jacob, that the only way to save the conservative party is by you being leader of the party. I must have heard a million times that people will only vote Tory with JRM at the helm.
The Tories have lost the trust of the people. In YOU we trust.
You have not heard that ..ever
Maybe only in your fever dreams
He was in cabinet tasked implementing policies etc and he was quite simply useless. I think he likes the history and theatre of politics, and speaking in 18th century prose etc, but he never got anything done .
He is in his OWN words a Classical Liberal and called Enoch Powell's speech evil. He is part of the problem.
@@Stand663 but nobody ever does these days. No just him.
@@evolassunglasses4673 That’s the problem with this present 2019 Conservative government. Even with a huge majority they never got anything done in parliament. The most incompetence was our border, fishing waters, Northern Ireland etc. Boris inexplicably withdrew the internal market bill, that would’ve guaranteed trade between NI and GB etc. The whole ineptitude of the appointed cabinet was staggering.
The UK is not a State, it`s an Economic Zone, Rishi Sunak told us that in a speech.
Sunak is a Goldman Sachs globalist, so it's what you'd expect to hear from a billionaire globalist banker. He was inserted into his job, not elected. The UK is being screwed by marxists, globalists, communists, and the degenerate looney left wokes, but Sunak couldn't care less.
Sorry but Johnson didn't get Brexit done
We left the EU but still live under the Global American Empire and its open borders Globalisation project. We got captured in 1945 and never broke free.
It was the 17.4. million that got Brexit done. The Tories managed it badly and generally screwed things up. It became Brexit in name only.
So are you lot going to put up Starkey's speech or?
Protectionism is a poor system ?
Well when you have outsourced all your skilled labour to the CCP, sold off all your infrastructure/assets and buy all their products,
dont come crying when you get CCP 2.0 imposed in the UK, all because you allowed yourself to be subjugated through foreign dependancy and asset stripping.
There are some areas that must be protected as a matter of national security.
But then you would have to isolate local/domestic/global free markets and apply them where appropriate.
All of which could be done by enforcing foreign companies to create branches in the UK in order to trade in the UK.
Might even get some taxes paid.
Is Boris Johnson a conservative or a liberal?
Neither of them, he’s a clown
We ended up with Major, Cameron, May, and Boris when we needed a Thatcher or a Powell
Raise Marriage Tax Allowance.
It's not a marriage tax allowance for everyone. Only the low paid get it. It would be about marriage if it was given to everyone who marries.
Not just the cheese makers - I think he’s referring to any purveyor of dairy produce
National treasure much!
Great speech. thank you.
why on earth have i not heard anything about free trade and its benefits, until now!??
If National means relying on people like Reese-Mogg I am an internationalist. If it is parents who lead ad be responsible, where does Nanny fit in to that?
Welcome to the Nat C Party
Please invite Carl Benjamin next year.
Power comes from the bottom up. It certainly doesn't feel like it at present, and this under a Conservative government. Nevertheless, an excellent speech. I just wish it was reflected in today's government.
I think what JRM means is that power is presently coming from a bunch of a’holes
It's all words and wordS for which he may have been dismissed.
I’ve always wondered re : Magna Carta, why the barons simply didn’t take power and run the country themselves. ?
to the ridicule of £400 that was promised and never arrived.
Having listened to Jacob for years I am convinced he would be a fantastic Prime Minister. He is very wise, knowledgeable and sensible and really cares for those who are struggling but some people cannot see past his ‘posh’ voice and upbringing. It is a form of prejudice against being well read and educated.
Nope. People dislike him because they know he is a self serving disingenuous entitled liar. There are many agregious things mogg has said and done. I could write a very long list. Problem is those who do believe him believe the long words the faux intelligence. One simple thing here would be a point on the family. Any check of his voting record shows he has always voted against anything that makes people's lives better or easier. He was recorded as saying he wants holiday pay removed,he votes against a better living wage. So tell me how do parents take their kids on holiday who looks after them in school holidays how do they feed their kids on minimum we and when they're work to live how do they look after their kids. There are so many lies half truths he has told it's surprising anyone still believes him
He's well read and educated which the left hate. It's called the politics of envy, something which the left adhere to.
Great speech, great speaker
Massive arse... He (and his father) have been at the heart of the conservative governments which have done such massive damage to this country...Not partisan, fuck both parties...
What the Hell would JRM know about actually governing? The moment he was given actual jobs to do instead of sniping from the backbenches he failed comprehensively and disastrously.
Pay attention at the back. Education dear boy Education.
he was OK as leader of the house
You’re correct. He’s totally inept at doing an actual job in cabinet. He just like to give stupid speeches
as if he’s in the 17th century.
@@jaysomastandup he was the man who facilitated the Johnson theft of our freedoms and the squashing of any dissent.
Did Mogg say, "stunning achievement of Brexit"? It was managed so appallingly and badly by the Tories, that you have to ask did we really get what we voted for?
A very informative contextualizing speech - tho I'm only a few minutes into it.
Edmund Burke, I haven't read him.
Word.
If only this corrupt bunch ever told the truth.
He accidentally did when admitting to Gerrymandering
Was John Fortescue an ancestor of Father Adrian Fortescue?
This sovereignty has been blocked by subsequent left wing government and is currently being accelerated by left wing mayors & councils. They have managed to progress their agenda almost to a point of no return. History tells us that anarchy does not erupt until the state has passed the point of control and the ending is always the same.
Pain for the politicians and pain for the people. Many years will pass before the constitution is restored & people allowed to live in peace.
There are two force at work in this era unlike other times.
Immigrant culture and government. It will end in civil war between the 3 parties. Sharia, constitution and UNITED NATIONS one government
International finance capitalism is the biggest diving force for open borders Globalisation.
Sorry but you have no excuse all that you talk about has been done during a Conservative administration. You can certainly talk the talk Jacob but it's been proven you can't walk the walk. My usually Tory vote will be moving elsewhere. Sorry.
Was Nigel invited? National conservatism seems to be exactly what he stands for
NATCON | How can we ramp up the Culture War and Shovel more Money to the Rich
Too many Tories are in bed with big business & corps.
JRM 4 PM
He is in his OWN words a Classical Liberal and called Enoch Powell's speech evil. He's part of the problem.
Protectionism is a brilliant system with nationalistic and socially conservative policies.
Open borders free market = rule by international finance
Great speech, spot on about nearly everything. Why cant he be prime minister. We need to get rid of sunak and hunt.
As ever brilliant and informative. A pity he cannot encourage he rest of the Conservative Party to return to this fundamental mindset. The surrending to the EU, ridiculous education, over - taxing, not controlling borders... and much more..... so much for the nation state being in total control doing the will of the people. The government is doing its own thing to the detriment of the people and expecting the people to pay whether they want it or not
More Mogg
less Mogg
@@Bolaniullen delete your comment
@@DrJams Delete Mogg
Less Mogg
state of this is embarrassing 🤣
Cough....there's some other teachings of Aquinas (The Angelic Doctor) that perhaps more Conservatives should read....his observations on Mohammed and his followers for example and why they exhibit certain proclivities. .
The Aquinas reference 1:00 is the question: "On War" (De bello) in Summa theologica II-II, q.40. There are legitimate but limited just causes and proper conduct of soldiers in war. In Article 2 though, it is not permissible for bishops and clerics to engage in “warlike pursuits” because this is conduct incompatible with: their “contemplation of divine things”(ref.2 Timothy 2:4); and their ministry of the alter in the sacrament, as portraying the shedding of the blood of Christ, means its “unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood” (ref. 1 Corinthians 11:26).
Later Question 10: “Unbelief in General” it is permissible to forcibly compel apostates and heretics to remain “in the fold”, but not to compel non-believers to embrace the faith. Only persuasion is permitted here.
Yes, Aquinas (1225-1274) certainly wrote one the most influential texts on war. Its in a section of his huge "Summa theologica" (1268-71), 2,000 pages long, written in the time its take to write a PhD these days. Instead of chapters, the book divides into numbered questions, "Quaesto". Its structured dialectically: that is a question concerning some subject is proposed in a way that makes a claim. Then objections are made against the propositional claim, and finally the objections are met. The content then draws heavily on previous authors positions on various points and central is Aristotle and of course the Bible. Each claim then is not just some definition or mere inheritance but exists within an historical structure that reaches back in history and argument. It seems to me a mistake to just take the claims in abstraction from this historical meaning laid out in the question the objection and the reply. There is then a certain coherence to the work, each claim is within a connected system, and must be connected to, not abstracted from, the rest of the text for its understanding.
The question: "On War" (De bello) is Summa theologica II-II, q.40. It asks whether, and under what conditions war can be just cause, and what would be just conduct in war. Central are the notions of intentions will morality. Indeed in "The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings" (Eds. Reichberg, Syse, Begby 2006), question 40 "On War", is placed within the context of other questions,
q. 29 "On Peace",
q. 41: "On Strife"
q. 42 "On Sedition",
q. 50: "The different Kinds of [military] Prudence",
q. 123: "On [battlefield] Fortitude",
q.64: “On Murder” Art. 7 Killing in self-defence,
q. 188: “Of the Different Kinds of Religious Life” Art. 3: Whether a religious order can be directed to soldering”.
q. 10 Art. 8: Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith?
and in the context of relations to the state in Aquinas earlier work "Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard"
"The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings" (Eds. Reichberg, Syse, Begby 2006)(pgs 169-198)
Note: A hypothetical medieval question can be raised concerning the context of Aquinas views on Just War, something like: Is it the subject that is always wrong in a judgement of a case under law? That is the part of the context of his discussion of the principles and rules of Just War has to be its application. The application of such principles and rules of ethics and morality Aquinas places not only in the individual’s character and reason but also in the context of a legal system and the tradition of Natural Law.
Firstly he distinguishes between Speculative Reason and Practical Reason: Speculative Reason is to understand Being and is organised from very general and universal principles that are self-evident and indemonstrable, and which all men agree on, such as: “the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time” since this at once of the distinction between Being and non Being. There are other more specific principles such as “Man is a rational being” and “every whole is greater than its part”. From these common principles are derived, like in mathematics or theoretical work, special specific and particular conclusion about real cases.
Practical reason in the case of human action is partly modelled on this, so concerning beginnings must deal with the general and universal, however, Practical Reason is not about Being but action and its object is the Good. There are then, general and universal self-evident statements with this that all men agree on: “good is that which all things seek after” as a description of fundamental essential nature, and Principles that follow from it as self-evident: “good is to be done and ensured and evil is to be avoided”. Aquinas views man and action as inclination and intention, towards ends/goals, and in this man reasons from principles to action towards objects. So from the first it follows “man has an inclination to good in common with all substances and so seeks self-preservation”, and in respect of him specifically and of specific cases. (This to me means he is in some way correct to place Being as privileged over non-Being, “The Ontological Argument”, since here we could say a particular good must be privileged over The Good and its contrary, which is fundamental but not absolutely independent of theoretical reason.)
However there is a fundamental difference from speculative reason in the “application” of agreed universal principles of practical reason to cases. Unlike in theoretical reason, man in practical reasoning can have their ability to recognise the good object goal in a specific case because his reasoning can become defective due to impediments brought on in the sphere of from generation to corruption by “distorted by passion, or by evil habits, or by bad natural relations”. He gives the example quoted by Julius Caesar that the Germans “failed to recognise theft as contrary to justice”. Aquinas’s point is that even if people recognise and agree on universal principles, their intentions and objects of specific actions, are shaped by their character: there capacity for Virtue and Vice, there exercise of Virtue in action, and recognition of the good, is and has been shaped and embedded within past habits.
Thus rational human beings can deliberate from principles they agree on but arrive at different and so, for some, incorrect conclusions. This is traditionally understood to mean the theoretically competent agents of institutions can work out correct laws as derivations from principles and virtuous administrators and judges can work out correct application down to specific cases of action. A subject’s deviation from this standard then indicative of bad character, intention and past bad habit and a priori evidence of sin. I guess from Aquinas, one reason why the instituional people don’t go to war is that it might affect their ability to maintain the standard of good conduct in cases for everybody else to measure up to. It appears to give a kind of a priori condition of the possibly of law, that we privilege a certain intellectual and virtuous class as necessary standards for the possibility of recognition of cases under the law.
Of course today people are not only suspicious of universal natural law principles (even in logic, mathematics and science since the late 19th century), but they are also sceptical that there is such a higher class of people whose character purposes and habits constitute both action in virtue and a standard of judgement in cases the subjects must take as such. Disagreement over cases might not just be between different subjects under a higher a priori standard but also between those that apply the law and those under it, wherein it would be an open question whether the person in error and corrupt character and bad intention bad is the instituional person or the subject. Indeed to take Aquinas’s example one might wonder if Julius Caesar is such a higher standard by which we judge his “Germans” as corrupt. Maybe following the invasion of their forests they were starving and nicking stuff off of the aristocratic Romans. I think Aquinas thought the concept of theft did not really apply singularly as a rule if you were starving, rather than being exception to the rule. I think it’s about action and virtue understood within a total context. So in the modern case of the off duty policeman who, while driving around town, noticed a wanted fugitive from Justice, and so stopped his car and arrested him. Drawing the arrest got a double yellow line “parking” ticket that he had to pay. Now the arrest I think does not so much mean he should have had an “exception” from the parking ticket, rather the context of the judge of the cases as a whole means he should not be punished for this at all since the whole thing is under the higher principle it forgets or shrinks the double yellow line “parking”. Now people are rightly concerned that this will allow all kinds of “excuses” and corrupt strategies of “double effect” to become open. You know “I thought that a fugitive from justice was in the shop gov.”. Indeed such a possibility was raised by Harriett Harman in the Boris Johnson number 10 cake party case enquiry. But while there is there risk of vice of use of double effect and excuse of context “as a whole of the law” for subjects, there must also be the higher mirror image vice of this: the instituional application of minute laws “parts of the law” in extremely complex situations of intentional goal orientated action. Phillip Bobbitt said something like the laws in Hell are the same as the laws in heaven but applied with absolute strict adherence to law.
(References are Summa theological II I, Question 94 Articles 2 and 4. There is a very nice 3 page edit of the main passages in Peter Singer (Ed) “Ethics” (Oxford Readers 1994 pgs 247-249)
Part A1: It was a number of philosophical and political cultural events that ended the dominance of Aquinas and medieval scholasticism in Europe. Now called the Renascence brought about the debate between the late medieval notions of man the world the cosmos and God and the beginnings of modern science. This was later described as debate purely between an earth centred universe and a sun centred universe that it was claimed by observation calculation and experiment Galileo won in “proving” the later true or best model compared to the former. The myth is though that the debaters on the side of the Church were bereft of knowledge of modern science and mathematics but this is manifestly untrue they were also experts. Indeed Galieo’s account of inertia is not a correct account against the medieval theories off impetus. The scholastics were wrong to pin everything on the debate over the model of the solar system. Moderns took this as not only a Critique of the scholastic model but of Aristotle and Aquinas in general. The scholastics fought the battle in the wrong field. Only one seems to have had the relation the central issue was really over the notion of the cosmos as essentially movement from potentiality to actuality, determined by an end, a purpose, an intentional cosmos verses a universe determined by prior law like causes determined mathematically though algebra and geometry. They were not though in a position to articulate this effectively. Later it would emerge as really a debate between the possibility of human purpose, intention, action, will, freedom and responsibility, verses a “clockwork” mechanical universe in which everything is determined externally though relations and prior causes. This would become a debate about an organism as a whole and a mechanical model made up of parts, along with a massive cosmological shift “From a Closed World to an Infinite Universe”. This problem is still with us expressed as usually between individual freedoms and determining external laws. And ironically the question of a universe of purpose has not being wholly rejected but rather transposed into economic and political purpose again though external to individual freedom and purpose except indirectly as a aggregate of all purposes (Mill Sedgwick ect.) or as the need for an absolute universal imminent/transcendent purpose in Political theology (Schmitt). Its contemporary version is modern between competing notions of progress e.g. particular State economic progress and competitions verses all states under a universal zero carbon progress. Or between State progress in utility verses progress in and towards universal Human Rights. Of course in all these the questions of the being of man and the individual is only mediatly given as dependent on the various conflicting transcendent infinite purposes.
Cultural and politically then there was of course the Protestant Reformation the Thirty Years War and the Hobbesian State verses Grotius International law. The replacement of the Church and Aristocracy as the main instituional power by the merchants the manufactures, scientific institutions and democracy.
Part A2: Aquinas on Logic Language and Science
But already at the beginning of the Enlightenment, some philosophers are aware here are still live arguments in play here. So Kant for example: although he rejects the Ontological Argument on logic linguistic and knowledge grounds, there is an awareness, since these structures only determine representation, that this is not really the proper context or terrain to debate the question of Being. Kant’s 18th century position that “Being is not a predicate” is repeated again in the terms of modern logic and language from the turn of the 19th century in Frege, and developed into a position of ontological relatives though logic and language posits or posits from the use of binding Existential and Universal Quantifiers: “To be, is to be the value of a bound variable”. There have indeed been more wider scoped Thomism Critiques of these positions that attempt to deal with this by showing that the fields of epistemology and now language and logic have to presuppose a deeper level of Existence than what appears at the surface of propositions. Many of the philosophers doing this were students of Wittgenstein or influenced by him. So Anscombe, Geech, Kenny, and Sellars take this up in various ways around Universals etc. McDowell in “Sellars’s Thomism” writes “Bennett describes his practice as studying old texts “in the spirit of a colleague, an antagonist, a student and a teacher”. He quotes H. P. Grice saying: “I treat those who are great but dead as if they were great but living, as persons who have something to say to us now(Learning from Six Philosophers).”. (McDowell “Having the World in View”(2009 p.g. 254))
(see Wilfred Sellars “Being and Being Known”; Herman Weidemann “Socrates est/ “There is no such thing as Pegasus”: Thomas Aquinas and W. van Orman Quine on the Logic of Singular Existence Statements”(in Contemporary German Philosophy Volume 3 (1983 159-178))
Lets explore some examples to partially compare Aquinas to the modern 20th century. The ontological argument begins “The fool has “said” in his heart that God does not exist”. Now we might compare this to “The fool say to himself that Pegasus exists”, and “The fool thinks that chair exists before me”, and “The fool says “there is a chair before me (us)”. These examples allows us to contrast some views. So for Plato any actual particular object we can see and comprehend and talk about can only be so by virtue of its participation “in” “with” or “under” a perfect ideal form of that object that both pre-exists the actual material sensible object and our comprehension of it and our talk about it. Aquinas found this kind of transcendent realism unacceptable. For Aquinas we first encounter material objects as individual substances but though the mind’s grasp of them through substantial forms. Our sensibility is attuned to such individual substances not mealy as receiving or reflexing individual cause impacts but as intentionality directedness towards the object not capturable as subject to a material cause, but as the actualisation of the sensible capacities. But this is not as such independent of minds “inner” faculties of memory imagination and phantasy: these both allow the retention of past images and their link to intention i.e. as the substance’s particular effective powers of activity. The ability to see think and say the chair over there involves the intellect that can actualise its potential viz a vie the very object before me and similar ones by a power of abstract that affords recondition. Pegasus is a creation of the imagination alone and the non-existence of God is a phantom of the imagination alone. What comes first is not perfect forms but our encounter real material substances with form that we then by abstraction get to comprehend and with language “say”. Gods role in this is prior but in terms of actuality from potentiality. Not prior independent Platonic Existence. This was part of a heated debate in medieval scholasticism between Ibn Sina Avicenna and then Ibu Rushd Averroes and finally various nominalist critiques from Scotus and Oakham. Before becoming so complex and incomprehensible by the time of the reformation that no lay person could really give a toss. (My translation of Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy "Aquinas" )
Part A3: Now McDowell takes up this discussion with reference to 20 th Century linguistic philosophy and specifically “Sellers Thomism”. McDowell notes that Sellars has a notion of a word in dot quotes e.g. *chair*. This is the idea that there is an inner act of thought that is a kind of inner private speaking a thought but not said a tacit covert or implicit active silence mental act by analogy with the word said “chair”. This is traced in Sellers by McDowell and Brandon through the Wittgenstinian Peter Geech “Mental Acts”, to Aquinas. In Sellers then “the mighty dead” are invoked to address problems from the enlightenment and in the twentieth century they had thought had been dealt with but returned and so made medieval thought no longer a matter of inactive passive curiosity but still in play and effective history. McDowell takes this up to question Sellers as having to hold a kind of private language with its semantics, as well as public language of discourse with its semantics. We can put it thus that if I think privately *Pegasus*,then how can I know this has the same meaning as my saying “Pegasus”, since in this case the problem is clear because there is no real object or substance Pegasus as a particular of a class of winged horses, to ground the isomorphism between *Pegasus* and “Pegasus”. At once then the question of a private or idiosyncratic subjectivity and its relation to publicity (objectivity or agreement). It open up questions about criteria for the legitimacy of the private subjectivity in terms of agreement and standards of publically recognisable objectivity. Its also though raises another unacknowledged mirror or reverse question about the validity or legitimacy of the public language as a standard for the private language. As Paul Richour points out the metaphor problem goes both ways. McDowell is gesturing to the apparent possibility not just of two spaces of reason: the space of causal laws of nature @chair, and the space of semantics the meaning of chair: but the later as the space of a private semantics *chair* and public semantics “chair”. We might, in a gesture to express the apparent possibility of also Platonic realm here the hyper public or super public or universal space of ideal perfect univocal meaning a logical mechanical language a progressive utopian or maybe an actualised artificial #chair#, which would then make it appear that “chair” is meaning only within a particular language, and *chair* cannot possibly mean anything.
Now part of the 20th century background to this is the very general question of 20 th century philosophy of language and semantics to even be able to express this problem in n its own terms at all that is the analytic field of meaning here is too narrow and abstracted from context to deal with settling these issues, even expressing them in its own frame of reference or methodology at all. There is not an internal problem here to be solved rather we need the realisation that the 20th century frame itself is the problem. Really this not problem solving or project saving approach become one of problem dissolving and project collapsing, to be replaced by something else, or maybe a return to older approaches. The invocation of the greats of the past, the announcement of their death was exaggerated and their contemporary irrelevance was premature.
Part A4 There are a number of routes that challenge the linguistic sematic approach altogether. i ma interested in ones that link this as really ground already in Practical Reason. That is the view of a stand alone Speculative Reason e.g. now logic language epistemology science (Law, economic theory psychology sociology etc) is a myth. But the failings of these abstractions can actually be expressed from within its errored position.ie from within the main guy on this Quine and his terms.
A long quote from Walter Farrell "A Companion to the Summa: Volume I The Architect of the Universe. (Sheed and Ward (1941))
"We have some idea of the impossibility of unified government and law without the fundamental unity of a common end among the citizens; for without that unity of end, which is the source of the common life, the root of the community, the brick and mortar that holds society together, there would be no game of politics to be played.
With this conception of government our time, and particularly our country, has no quarrel what so ever. Perhaps this age will be outstanding in history for its universal acceptance of these fundamental notions of government; certainly never before in the history of the world has there been such a universal championship of government’s proper act of law. As evidence of this we have the naïve faith in the power of law which has lead us into a kind of mass production of law for a variety of purposes that staggers the mind. We have made use of the law for the correction of every kind of evil, economic, financial, physical moral and social, and this in such meticulous detail as to make ourselves somewhat ridiculous. We do, indeed, believe in law and the power of law. As a last, if perverted, tribute to this championship of government we have the world wide drift to the absolute in the state, even among nations who fight absolutism.
Our modern almost worshipful attitude towards science is a recognition of the proper act of government in the physical universe and on a world wide scale."
“ Nat.. C….”
is homonym of “Nazi”
However homonyms sound the same but have different meanings.
Yes: they will undoubtedly go down in history as the Natcis ... Natties? ...Nutties?
@@DieFlabbergast I think you're talking about the SNP dear boy
There's a great documentary on RUclips from 1966 where it tells you what insults you can expect to get from communists. They include Nazi, Oppressors and many more that you idiots use. Shame you're not old enough to have lived in NAZI Germany. Maybe then you'd take a different view.
@@paulmetcalfe6855 maybe if you had some lessons on oppression and didn't conflate that with communism of any ilk and a good old amount of German history you'd have more awareness
Neo-cons?.....
The intellectual fascist dustbin himself
I and 3 million brits living in europe were not allowed a vote..Thats why I,m back here to correct this Brexit BS and reverese the lies!!
You were living in Europe so you don't get a vote
I love Brexit! The icing on the cake is all the howling from the remoaners!
The sooner your generation shuffles off the electorate the better
Too late Clifford, you need to accept the result you tedious Onanist!
@Maid Subrena I was a UK Citizen living in Netherlands with my UK Passport as I was entitled too as a UK(Important that bit)Citizen!!!Get IT??
My grandparents fought against the fascist threat to this country in the 1940s and now the fascist threat comes from within with these lunatics.
The average British views of the 40's would be called fascist today.
A nation should cherish and support families
Yeah, what a nutter.
🙄
Your grandparents would more than likely be in that audience if they were around today.
Fascism is a creation of socialism you moron.
Typical reply from the youth of today. Oh dear, how little they know.
HE BRINGS TO MIND A MAN CALLED HEINRICH HIMMLER..
Don't be obtuse.
Keep injecting the estrogen nick, i'm sure you will fit into that dress one day...
He’s more of a Goebbels/Von Ribbentrop mash-up.
@@pendorran He's just another WEF puppet, sycophantically serving his foreign masters...
I vividly remember the SS leader speaking about free trade. Seriously, you read the word 'national' and your brain cannot separate it from anything else.