Farage On Greek Chaos: "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet"

Tyler Durden's picture

Outspoken and oracular MEP Nigel Farage bombards his fellow unelected officials with 'you can't handle the truth' comments as he points out the total contradiction that is the European Parliament's (and 'Puppet Papademos') view of how things are going in their democracy relative to the reality of a TROIKA-ordered coup forced on the man in the street. Greece is being driven further and further into chaos and as he implores his peers: "If they don't get the Drachma back, you will be responsible for something truly truly horrible!".

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Lednbrass's picture

Complete horseshit. You make an utterly flawed statement and draw an even stupider conclusion based on it.

There is no slavery now, and I still dont want to share a country with idiots like you. Let us vote on it, and we will see how long the south stays politically tied to the north. You threw the constitution out the window long ago in your relentless march toward an all powerful central government, Lincoln threw it in the trashcan to "save" it.

A common language and currency do not make a people and we have nothing else in common. By all means, lets put it to a vote- a very large number of folks in the south have no use for you whatsoever.

ChrisFromMorningside's picture


The potential successor states he delineates are absurd. Nonetheless, I wonder if people will turn to devolution/secession once more when the economic SHTF.

disabledvet's picture

absolutely false that there is no modern variant of slavery brewing. it's all about "the triumph of the will" over your mind....the universal use of the inernet (which cannot be turned off--even by the government as Egypt found out) is the network being used...and the device is whatever connected device that is in your house, car, pocket, etc that connects your mind directly to a central controller.

roadhazard's picture

The North would only pay the South .10 an lb. for it's cotton. Europe would pay more. The North blockaded the South. The result was War.

UGrev's picture

The issue of slavery was used as an emotional pawn by the Union to elicit a pro Union and anti-confederate sentiment.. it was the precursor to "It's for the children". The real issue was disunion and states rights. That's what ignited the war... not slavery. But disunion wasn't enough for many to go to war over, so something else was needed to rally around; something that emotionally charged people to be "patriotic citizens". 

Hate to tell all of our American brothers who are of darker tone that those who's ancestors were slaves, were played as a pawn by the union. Slavery would have become illegal anyway if the confed won, but that goes on being ignored. 

Breaker's picture

Have you read the debates before the South Carolina legislature before they seceeded? Go read them and tell me the war wasn't substantially about preservation of slavery for the South. For the North motives were clearly multiple. The New England states were loaded with abolitionists. John Brown wasn't working on "preserving the Union." Others wanted to preserve the union. Others wanted to let the South go its own way. By the end of the war, abolitionist sentiment in the North was probably the predominant motive. Certainly that was the case in the Army of the Potomoc.

jwoop66's picture

You cannot deny it... if there was no slavery, there would have been no civil war.

jwoop66's picture

If there was no slavery, there would be no civil war.

edotabin's picture

Dr. Ferguson has a series out called "The Ascent of Money"  It is readily available for viewing on PBS. He, alone, will add a few more dimensions to what you are writing.

boiltherich's picture

Freedom from religious Reichwing nuts would be nice.  And of course the Civil War was fought to maintain a white oligarchic land and slave owning over class social structure that was already archaic by the time the original constitution was drafted.  Part of the reason we have had and are in so much trouble is that in order to make a Union in the first place so many compromises had to be made with those who deeply believed in freedom for themselves and not others, and while we have millions of loudmouth whiners that are wildly pissed off at the rest of us because we have somehow offended them that does not give them license to spout sedition and anarchy, and they are greatly outnumbered.  WE the people have a lot of serious problems that are both urgent and life threatening, we can pull together to identify what those problems are and then work cooperatively to mend them, or we can be destroyed by our own inactions.  You might recognize those words, they are a paraphrase of Abraham Lincoln, "a house divided..."   Hatreds, bigotry, and threats by racists and malcontents who refuse to get along with others because of their own psychosocial disorders of inadequacy are the largest stumbling block to fixing the greed that is killing this country.  I suspect that is why so many who voted for him are disillusioned with Barry O.  He spouted many of the same concepts in order to get elected only then to go on vacation after vacation while the world burned around him.  But, the blame lay with him and not with those he has betrayed, even though they were warned.  People come and read posts filled with anger and hate and demands for Ron Paul's election and you wonder why he gains no real traction?  The population at large have come to associate his positions with some really detestable people who support him. 

psychobilly's picture



You are either the victim of a public school edumakashion (and severely detached from reality) or a SPLC troll. 

Either way: my condolences.

trav7777's picture

are you stupid?

Race, contrary to that stupid link someone posted, is NOT a social construct.  It is biological.  That is why clinical drug trials ask for race, because they are seething racists, not because there is any genetic difference between people who were born with tons of different physical attributes.

boogerbently's picture

You are......medically uninformed.

boiltherich's picture

That retarded Nazi is just plain uninformed period, no need to qualify it with medically. 

centerline's picture

How so? There are fundamental differences...biologically speaking. I recall one guy back in 80's or so who could record results from fast-twitch muscle fiber and without knowing anything about the person could say whether it was a black person or otherwise. He was right to an astonishing degree - and of course was called racist by idiots who don't understand there are in fact biological differences.  Like blond hair or olive colored skin... it all has a purpose... unless your not into Darwin and think evolution is just a bunch of lies.

ChrisFromMorningside's picture

Russian scientists ran a long-term experiment where they selectively bred wild canines (foxes and wolves), selecting for tameness and sociability with humans. Within less than a century, the canines looked and acted far more like domestic dogs than the wild canines they were only a few generations removed from. Genetically, they were still foxes and canines but in terms of appearance, temperament and instinct they were radically different.

Various human populations were isolated from one another for millenia. Africa was practically inpenetrable due to tropical diseases that non-Africans had no experience with or immunity to. Eurasians were not aware of the existence of the Americas until a few centuries ago. So we have had a far longer time to drift from each other. Africans, aboriginal Australians, some Polynesians and a smattering of other people around the world never developed large-scale intensive agriculture nor did they take up animal husbandry (in some cases, because there were no suitable crops nor animals to domesticate) like Eurasians and Amerindians did. I have a hard time believing that thousands of years of relatively isolated breeding in significantly different economic contexts that each emphasized different skills/temperaments/instincts as the keys to survival is trumped by 300 some odd years of multicultural interaction. I'll give you an example, in hunter-gatherer societies, the key to survival is a killer intinct (gotta react quickly if you run into game), impulsivity and physical strength (for raiding other tribes). While in agricultural/animal-husbandry societies that killer instinct must be tempered to allow for nurturing and raising valuable animals without your primal instinct leading you to kill them, as well as patience (crops take a long time to grow, especially orchards), and an intellectual mind is more valuable than physical strength (gotta study and learn the biology of what you eat in order to become more efficient).

Monday1929's picture

Trav, just how small is your dick?

linrom's picture

Your teachers wasn't much of a historian then.

TruthInSunshine's picture

I gotta' go with Trav on the slavery issue.

The real force behind the move to abolish slavery was one of economic competitive advantage/disadvantage.

Of course there were people, and in high & powerful places, who saw the profound injustice of treating humans as property. Their articulation of this was a significant contributing factor to allow a protracted, costly civil war to be fought.

But the underlying catalyst for that war was economic.

nmewn's picture

And...for historical reference, the three fifths compromise at our conception was offered by delegates from north of the Mason-Dixon (Wilson & Sherman).

A minor point to be sure, as a slave would be counted for representation purposes in Congress but couldn't actually vote on anything...but still, dividing a human (Solomon like) was a distinctively northern idea in order to get the slave holding states to agree to enter the Union voluntarily in the first place.

So, whenever you hear some jack leg popping off about racial insensitivity, know that the idea of three fifths of a human came from Pennsylvania & Connecticut.

Dapper Dan's picture

John Brown? Harpers Ferry? 1859? It was in all the papers!

nmewn's picture

John Brown was a thief and a murderer who was never a slave to anyone or anything but his own insanity.

"At the Doyle farm, James and two of his sons, William and Drury, were dragged outside and hacked up with short, heavy sabres donated to Brown in Akron, Ohio. Mrs. Doyle, a daughter, and fourteen year old John were spared. The gang then moved on to Allen Wilkinson's place. He was 'taken prisoner' amid the cries of a sick wife and two children. Two saddles and a rifle were apparently confiscated. The third house visited that night was owned by James Harris. In addition to his wife and young child, Harris had three other men sleeping there. Only one of them, William Sherman, was executed. Weapons, a saddle, and a horse were confiscated from the house. While members of the rifle company, including four of Brown's sons, asserted that their Captain did not commit any of the actual murders himself, he was the undisputed leader and made the decisions as to who should be spared.

The combination of the fall of Lawrence and the Pottawatomie Creek killings caused southeastern Kansas to erupt into guerilla warfare."

>>>None of these people were slave owners<<<.

He killed and robbed their homes because of their "party" affiliation.

He was fortunate to have been captured by Lee, a real man, with impeccable integrity and honor.

Virtues very alien to John Brown.

JPM Hater001's picture

I have always believed the Civil was was a moral victory but a constitution travesty.

We never did really recover.

V in PA's picture

Agreed. And the 17th Amendment, calling for the popular election of Senator's, was the final blow to States Rights.

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture



Worse, the 17th Amendment was the death knell for our constitutional republic and the beginning of "democracy".

The good news is the 17th Amendment was not constitutionally ratified and should be disregarded by the states (if they had any balls).


Breaker's picture

I agree. The south was right about federalism and states rights. And terribly wrong on slavery. The result was, thus, both a victory over an evil and a tragedy for our form of government.

Monday1929's picture

If you could look more favorably at slavery, you will get more up votes here. Time to stop reading the comments. Durden, does it concern you that most of your readers seem to be racist assholes?

It IS nice to have bigots on the other side of my trades, they tend to be wrong about so much.

nmewn's picture

Let me guess...you're a fifth grade history teacher in the Atlanta school system.

How is that new testing program working out after you were caught erasing students incorrect answers and filling in the right answers?

Did it make you feel good that you robbed predominately black kids...for years on end...of a proper primary education?

The soft bigotry of low expectations certainly shines through with this feigned high brow little diddy of yours.

xela2200's picture

And with that said. He went to his plantation to do the traditional whipping of his Negroes.

Sorry, it is hard to take seriously a post that compares a leader that is trying to free people to one that wanted to preserve a slavery system.

Roger O. Thornhill's picture

I'll just leave you with a couple "Psycho Abe" Lincoln quotes you will not have learned in public school:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

Roger O. Thornhill's picture

The first quote is from a letter dated August 22, 1862 to Horace Greeley in response to an editorial on abolition.

The second quote is from the Lincoln-Douglas debates - Debate at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

If you study the history you'll see that no one but "Psycho Abe" really wanted to settle this with bloodshed. Most countries figured out how to end slavery without a war.

New York State still had slaves until 1827 (although some would say, anyone living there currently under their tax code is still a slave!). The North themselves had only recently finished working out slavery - yet Abe wanted his war.

"Psycho Abe" has the blood on his hands for at least 618,000 Americans who died in the Civil War - some say it topped 700,000. So we honor a lunatic who was directly culpable in the deaths of between half-a-million to three-quarters of a million people. The only reason he is a saint is because he was "martyred" at the end of the war - otherwise I think most people would easily consider him the most evil of all presidents for all the bloodshed he caused. Unless you like seeing people die - then maybe he is a saint to you.


Ag Star's picture

I didn't know that Americans still studied history.  You must me a real old-timer, like me.

LasVegasDave's picture

Big Ups, a beautiful speach.

The civil war wasnt about slavery, anymore than Iraq was about WMD.

There will be another secession movement within the next ten years led by the productive liberty loving people looking to rid themselves of the dependant political class and their parasites.

Dollar demise, then secession movement.

falak pema's picture

can I have my old cotton plantation back?

The first slaves left Africa in 1503 and landed in Hispanolia, biggest sugar cane plantation of the world it became,

thanks to black slaves. In all 15 million came to the Americas from good ole uprooted Africa, a trifle, a drop in the Ocean. Nothing to write home about.

Much better to make a beautiful speech about inherent rights of FREEDOM, not theirs, ours!

nmewn's picture

Before we (or anyone) get's the idea that this "peculiar institution" (slavery) was unique to America or Britain or Spain or Portugal ad nauseum...

Perhaps we should look at the other coast of Africa and it's interior as well. The arabs were in it for a profit just like everyone else back then.

While I know this goes against the "conventional wisdom" of the brainwashed masses...its very much true.

And it continues to this day ;-)


falak pema's picture

yep, but along the road, the greeks invented civilization. So I look at life through the lens of Renaissance and Enlightenment.

And so should you as your roots are the same as mine. The French Revolution abolished slavery in 1793, so we knew that was the wrong route, incompatible with human progress.

Of course, Man's hubris and power play, Bonaparte as first council in person, re-established it in 1802, as he toyed with the idea of a Super American colony including Hispaniola and Louisiana purchase from Spain. A grand scheme that didn't materialise as he lacked naval fire power to match British EMpire. He sold Louisiana to Jefferson's USA, but he kept the slavery status until it was revoked in 1848 during next French Revolution. 

Its a bitch this fight forever ongoing between value systems and power systems. We have to know what our priorities are.

I ALWAYS believed that the USA was built to serve an IDEAL by the founding fathers. An Ideal...not greed.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Anyone who realizes the Ponzi Circus for what it is, which is stetching the already baked-in ridculousness of a Ponzi Circus by its own hilarious standards (i.e. anyone with an IQ above 95), has got to love the way Farage mocks it in his over-the-top way. A laughable fraud and scam deserves such treatment (I'm glad Farage doesn't 'get all' technical and emotionally involved in pointing out the inherent and unworkable defects in the Eurozone experiment).

By my very quick and dirty math, Greek currently owes 3.9% of PIIGS debt, and it will require between 350 to 550 billion to keep Greece functioning as part of the Eurozone for the next 1 1/2 to 2 years, so it should take approximately 6 to 12 trillion € to keep the whole of PIIGS functioning as part of the Eurozone for same time period (without fixing the core defects that will require far more to be spent beyond anything approximating a 2 year time frame).


And here's your LOL-Daily Fed Speak of the day* (*sponsored by Brawndo; Brawndo's got what plants craves - electrolytes!), which is provided today by Mssr Fisher of all people:

Fed's Fisher says in favour of breaking up the 5 largest US banks, they are too big to fail

"In my view, there is only one fail-safe way to deal with too big to fail. I believe that too-big-to-fail banks are too dangerous to permit," Fisher said, speaking before the Columbia Business School in New York.

"By seeking to postpone the comeuppance of investors, lenders and bank managers who made imprudent decisions, we incur the wrath of ordinary citizens and smaller entities that resent this favorable treatment, and we plant the seeds of social unrest," said Fisher.

"We also impede the ability of the market to clear or, to ... allow the marketplace to distinguish freely those who should stand and those who should fall." Fisher did not discuss central bank policy.


Link:    Fed's Fisher Urges Breaking Up 'Too Big to Fail'

Link:    Fed's Fisher says in favour of breaking up the 5 largest US banks, they are too big to fail


Augustus's picture

That is what always irked me about the TARP / TALP program.  While I agree that it needed to be done to stop the bank run, they took all of the toxic institutions and added them to the largest and most dangerous banks.  It simply made them more dangerous if one failed.  It was an opportunity lost to get some of this Fisher recommendation implemented.

Mary Wilbur's picture

Not only men. Nigel Farage is a rare example of honesty in a world of spin and bullshit.

redpill's picture

Can we steal him?  Paul/Farage 2012!

xela2200's picture

Are you INSANE? They will get killed within a year. No no, we need to spread them around, so they are harder to get.

Harbanger's picture

Farage said in a recent speech "if you rob people of their identity, rob them of their democracy, then then all they are left with is Nationalism and violence."  Nationalism?  That and the existing Euro Socialist Gov. leads to Fascism, No? How about the big European Socialist Govts are a failure and couldn't exist without the ponzi fiat game.

Raging Debate's picture

Well said. Nigel Farage is a modern day Aristotle.

falak pema's picture

mary mary quite contrary, how does your Farage grow?

With silver bells and cockle shells,

and pretty maids all in a row. 

My God does he blow, this constant gardener, 

This honourable tinker, tailor, soldier, spy.

Rich man poor man, everybody's bogey man

You're my one and only man; my Nigel Farage

Beacon of hope in a sea of media porridge.

Nay a Daniel come to judgement at Nuremberg.

Silver Bug's picture

Farage is one of the true freedom fighters left out there. Amazing person.



Colonial Intent's picture

50 Up arrows for a fuggin Nazi Wannabe!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The BNP supported his candidacy at the Bromley by-election in England.

BNP = British National-Socialist Party.

Do some research before you "Heart" him, Please.

Last post, I'm off for a lie down before me ticker gives out again!

toothpicker's picture

Did you even listen to what he said? Fool

boiltherich's picture

That would be like tarring Ron Paul because of some of the nut bags that support him, including some of the worst right wing dirtbags in the country. 

Colonial Intent's picture

If one ot those nutbas was another candidate in an election who didnt run so farage could win then yes, ron paul didnt do that and he won the last primary, 3% win for romney my arse!