After rooting through several blogs, i found a brilliant post on the UN report which says that 300,000 deaths are caused by Jolobial Warmin’ every year.
Oh, one other thing, every time you think about free speach, a leftie dies.
After rooting through several blogs, i found a brilliant post on the UN report which says that 300,000 deaths are caused by Jolobial Warmin’ every year.
Oh, one other thing, every time you think about free speach, a leftie dies.
He claimed £5 for money he put in a Church Collection. Has to be Labour of course. Even the Tories would not do that.
Frank Cook. Hmmmm. Does not think people should have guns…unsound a priori.
This is a sort of roundup…
…I wonder what other countries think of us these days.
But it will get lost, in the media-furore against the Tory claimers….true that their claims have been bizarre and astonishingly ill-judged against the possibility that they might all come out, but I think the general principle holds still, that GramscoMarxiaNazis still have their hands more firmly rooted inside the back recesses of the till than Tories do, or have done. Tory MP-scammism was, rightly and originally, about getting lovely sex with younger women, who posed as “parliamentary secretaries”, since young Tories all wore pinstriped suits, Bengal Shirts and silk ties all the time, and were estate agents and could not therefore pull girls. But in default of being able to do that, what was needed could be called in anyway just over the phone if you were an MP: I don’t know why they could not have stuck to the model (in a manner of speaking.)
No averagely-pretty young woman would, I feel sure, agree to be shagged by a socialist in any case, and assuredly not even for ready money or expenses. the current appearance of “Blair Babes” corroborates this hypothesis.
I can’t think people like Keeley Hazell and all her clones would be so base.
Woz it really that Reynhard Heydrich fellow in the audience? I thought he’d been wasted by those Czechoslovak chaps.
MP’s expences can now be seen from space. They realy can’t hide from the taxpayers any more.
When Frankie uttered these famous words it was a cue. A hint that even though he appeared to be discussing/taking something very, very seriously, it was expected that you, the punter, should look a little deeper, chuckle at the humour that was thrown your way and wait patiently for the punchline. His true art was to play with words. He could turn an innocent statement into a comedy classic with out blinking.
Today the Squids and I went to an open day at a local Marine Barracks. Doing assault courses. Watching loonies in full Marine kit drop to the ground (via a 200ft long rope) from a helicopter. Climbing all over tanks and vast quantities of sunshine, sea air, fizzy pop, ice cream and face painting made for a fantastic day out - not sure what the Squids got up to but I’m sure they enjoyed it too.
When we got home, in the post, I had received a flyer. It contained a ‘personal letter’. In the interests of (attempted) accuracy, I have included all CAPITALS and bold highlighting. I have changed the (Labour Candidates) name to protect the innocent. As for the other (do-nothing) guy, the flyer doesn’t actually mention his name.
The flyer was titled
COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION SPECIAL.
Thursday June 4th Time To Choose Between JOE BLOGGS OUR ALL YEAR ROUND HARD WORKING COUNCILLOR or the stay-at-home do-nothing Tory.
Local Mummy’s Town resident Joe Bloggs is the Labour Candidate at this election.
This is followed by Joe Bloggs’s CV guff. Then it says,
JOE BLOGGS believes in:-
Lots of Nu Labour guff such as cleaner greener, by-passes, glass recycling, tough policing, economic development,young people and of course value for money.
Then it says :-
Do you realise that at many Council Meetings many Councillors NEVER speak and sometimes NEVER even bother to turn up?-You can rest assured that JOE is always there speaking up for our local residents.
Then it says:-
4 THINGS TO REMEMBER AT THIS ELECTION……………………….
1. Joe Bloggs is the only only candidate at this election with a proven track record of service and action. Joe is respected for not indulging in the lies, smears and innuendos so common in local politics.
2. Joe LIVES IN MUMMY’S TOWN and is aware of local issues that affect you.
3. Everyone knows that Joe Bloggs works hard all the year round NOT JUST WHEN HE WANTS YOUR VOTE.
4. Joe Bloggs is the Candidate with the MOST EXPERIENCE STANDING IN THIS ELECTION
So that’s the front page – same old, same old. The back is filled with 4 or 5 sections highlighting important things going on in Mummy’s Town that have pissed all the residents off (big stylee) and what good old Joe would do about them.
So is this worth a titter – well a little. There are a couple of quirky bits, like well, being him being a Labour Candidate, plus his statement Joe is respected for not indulging in the lies, smears and innuendos so common in local politics - having just slagged off the local Tory Candidate and stating that most Councillors were lazy bags of shite. Joe you is Red, through and through.
How ever. Inside this flyer was the personal (see standard computer print out) letter. It was in an envelope and everything. The letter was filled with pretty much the same guff as the flyer but with one extra special bit. Like all classic comedians Joe Bloggs saved his punchline till the very end. It was classy, to the point but very understated. Right now, I am having visions of Frankie, Eric Morecambe and Les Dawson giving this guy a spiritual standing ovation.
Right down the bottom it says:-
Please remember you are not voting for the Government today. You are voting for someone to speak up for you on the County Council.
Now it may be the sun, it may be the fizzy pop, it may even be close proximity to a bunch of sweaty Marines, but I found this simple statement that funniest fucking thing I have read in ages.
Yes this is a double post – again – I’m sorry.
What is the Ruling Class?
By Sean Gabb
A Paper Given on Sunday the 24th May 2009
to the Fourth Annual Conference
of the Property and Freedom Society
in the Hotel Karia Princess in Bodrum, Turkey
In giving this paper, I make no pretence to originality of thought. Everything I am saying today has been said already – usually better, and always in greater detail – by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, by Roderick Long, by Kevin Carson, by Christian Michel, and by many others. If I can contribute anything to the libertarian analysis of class, it is brevity alone.
Libertarians often define a ruling class as that group of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, businessmen, therapists, educators and media people who derive income and position from the State. By definition, so far as such people operate as members of a ruling class, they are parasitic on the efforts of ordinary people. Their position comes from forcing others to act as they would not freely choose, or by excluding them from activities they might freely choose. Their income is based on forced transfers of wealth.
The size and activities of a ruling class will be determined by the physical resources it can extract from the people, by the amount of force it can use against them, and by the nature and acceptance of the ideology that legitimises its existence. None of these determinants by itself will be decisive, but each is a necessary factor. Change any one, and the working of the other two will be limited or wholly checked.
Of these determinants, the ideological are the most open to control and change. In the short term, resources are fixed in quantity. At any time, the amount of force available will be limited. What will always interest ruling classes, therefore, is the nature and acceptance of its legitimising ideology. This will vary according to circumstances that are not fully within the control of any ruling class. It may involve averting the Divine Wrath, or promoting acceptance of the True Faith, or protecting the nation from external or external enemies, or raising the condition of the poor, or making us healthier, or saving the planet from us. The claims of the ideology may, in other times and places, seem unfounded or insane. What they generally have in common is the need for an active state directed by the right sort of people.
Since the function of these ideologies is to justify theft or murder or both, they need to be promoted by endless repetition – which is a valid form of argument if truth is less important than winning – and by at least the discouragement of dissent. Efficient promotion will produce a discourse – this being the acceptance of a language and of habits of thought in which dissent cannot be expressed without also conceding its immorality. Efficient promotion will also produce a state of almost universal false consciousness – in which ordinary people are brought to accept ideological claims as true that are opposed to their own interests as these might be reasonably considered.
Now, to speak of ruling classes, and in these terms, will often produce a strongly hostile reaction from libertarians and from conservatives. In the first place, it sounds like Marxism. Indeed, in summarising my own beliefs about a ruling class, I have deliberately borrowed terms from the Marxist theory of class – “discourse”, “false consciousness”, “class consciousness”. This is sure to disturb many – and perhaps many in this room. For at least three generations, our movement was at ideological war with Marxism. We did all we could to refute its claims and to spread the truth about its consequences wherever it was tried. To use its language to express broadly similar concepts will appear to be making concessions that amount to intellectual surrender.
In the second place, many libertarians deny that the concept of a ruling class has any meaning in our own world. In 1605, for example, Guy Fawks and his fellow conspirators tried to blow up Parliament while it was being opened by the King. If they had succeeded, they would have killed the King and the whole of the senior aristocracy and the leaders of the Established Church and – give or take a few nominees – the leading men of every shire and town in England. At one stroke, they would have killed around seven hundred men, and this would have snuffed out the whole of the English ruling class.
And this was a ruling class. Its members were largely there by virtue of birth. They were often related to each other. They shared a common education. They dressed differently and spoke differently from those over whom they ruled. Generally, they were cleaner. They were committed to the Protestant faith and to the land settlement of Henry VIII. Their class consciousness was expressed in countless ways, and was reflected in their language. They spoke of “persons of quality” or “persons of gentle birth” or of “gentlemen”.
In England or America today, whatever I call the ruling class is far larger and has far less apparent unity. I have defined it as a group of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, businessmen, therapists, educators and media and business people. Perhaps I should just call these a gathering of groups, united only in their competition for power and income via the State, and each with a different legitimising ideology. Perhaps they are best compared not to the undoubted ruling class of Jacobean England, but to the members of a French bus queue. The common defining characteristic of these latter is that they all want to get on the bus. But it plainly serves no analytical or propagandistic purpose to define them on these grounds as a class.
Then there is the problem of collective action. Members of a supposed ruling class, for example – just as of a cartel – have personal interests as well as group interests. The former will often be more pressing than the latter; and the tendency over time will be for the rich and powerful to preach class solidarity while undermining it in their behaviour.
I will deal with the second of these objections in a moment. The first is easily answered. There is nothing specifically Marxist about the analysis of class and of class conflict. The Wealth of Nations is largely an exercise in class analysis. In France, J.B. Say was the father of a whole school of classical liberal class theory that was developed by, among others, Charles Compte, Charles Dunoyer and Augustin Thierry. In England, Cobden and Bright conceived their struggles against the corn laws and against war in terms of a class struggle. Marxian class theory, when it emerged in the middle of the nineteenth century, was one theory among many, and not at all the most prominent or most widely accepted.
This being said, Marxian class theory has, since then, received by far the most attention, and has been most fully developed. It is natural for many of us to feel uncomfortable about accepting any parts of this theory. But, if understandable, this is to be regretted. Marxism is false as a theory of human behaviour. But it has been developed by men of sometimes considerable talent and insight. To reject the incidental truths found by these men is rather like denouncing motorways because the first person to build them was Hitler. Astrology and alchemy were false sciences. Their claims about prediction and transformation were long ago falsified. Even so, the real sciences of astronomy and chemistry owe many incidental debts that no chemist or astronomer is ashamed to admit.
It should be the same with libertarians and conservatives in their view of Marxian class theory. Marx himself, together with Marxists like Antonio Gramsci and Louis Althusser and even Michel Foucoult, have much to tell us, and I am not ashamed to use Marxist terminology when I think it suits the needs of a libertarian class theory.
The main difference between Marxist and libertarian theories of class is in where each side locates the source of class power. For the Marxists, class power derives from ownership of the means of production. Standing in the tradition of Rousseau, Marx and his followers believe that mankind lived at first in a state of primitive communism, in which the means of production were held in common. This ended with the rise of a class that was able to take the means of production into its own possession. This class then set up the State as an executive committee to assist in its domination of everyone else. Since then, there have been successive revolutions as changes in the means of production have raised other classes to wealth, and these classes have then consolidated their own leading position by taking over the State.
According to this theory, therefore, the source of class power lies in wealth, and political power follows from wealth. This explains the Marxist belief that a communist revolution, by abolishing class domination, will rid the State of its oppressive nature. The State may then be dispensed from the liberal requirements of limitation and due process, and can be safely used as an instrument for ending such class power as remained. It will then, of itself, wither away.
This theory is manifestly false. Even without the thirty or fifty million corpses piled up by Marxist tyrannies in the twentieth century, it shows a terrible ignorance of human nature. Whether we dismiss the Marxists, in their main theory, as idiots or as villains depends on who is being discussed. But this is not to deny the incidental truths uncovered by Marx and his followers.
And these can be fitted into a libertarian class theory that locates the source of ruling class power in the State. For us, the State is not something created by the already powerful. It is, instead, something captured by those who want to become powerful – and who cannot become powerful by any other means. Without a state, there can be no exploitation. Without a state, the only transactions would be exchanges of value between free individuals from which all parties benefit according to their own conceptions of their interests. It is the State that can steal and kill. It is the State that raises up or calls into being groups that hope to benefit from the use of these powers, and that then constitute a ruling class. Abolish the State – or severely limit its size and power – and class domination will fall to the ground. The groups that comprise the ruling class will either die like tapeworms in a dead rat, or will be forced to offer their services on terms attractive to willing buyers.
I will now deal with the second libertarian objection to the concept of a ruling class. I accept that there is a problem of collective action. But this does not make an absolute refutation. For some purposes, group solidarity may be weaker than the pursuit of individual interests – but not always. Anyone who doubts this has only to look at the large number of young men in every generation who allow themselves – or volunteer – to be put into uniform and sent out to die for their country. Cartels are generally accepted to be conspiracies against the public interest. Class solidarity – so long as based on a legitimising ideology that is as firmly accepted by rulers as by ruled – can generally underpin collective action for many purposes and over long periods. Indeed, one of the sure signs that a ruling class has lost its will to rule is when significant numbers of those within it make fun of their legitimising ideology, or merely cease in private to believe in its truth. It is then that class solidarity becomes a sham, and the rulers begin to act like members of a cartel.
I also accept that ruling classes are, in our societies, much larger and more diverse than in the past. But accepting its size and diversity does not refute the claim that there is a ruling class. It is not necessary for the various groups I have mentioned to agree with each other in all respects. There is no reason for the ruling class to be monolithic. The medical establishment and tax gathering bureaucrats do not agree about state policy on smoking. Big business may disagree with the education establishment about what and how children are taught. Just a few years ago in England, the Government and the state-owned BBC fell out very bitterly over the Iraq War. During such disputes, different groups within the ruling class may even turn for physical or moral support to groups far outside the ruling class. They may even, from time to time, recast themselves – by accepting newly attractive groups, or expelling groups that no longer contribute to the class as a whole, or that endanger the continued existence of the class as a whole.
Even so, there is a general solidarity of interest that holds an effective ruling class together. No matter how they argue over the details of what the State is to do, its constituent groups will extend each other a mutual recognition of legitimacy. They agree that the State is a force for good, and that they are the right people to direct it. Their disputes will not be carried to the point where they knowingly undermine their overall legitimacy as a class – or the legitimacy of any of the constituent groups. Roderick Long has likened modern ruling classes to Church and State in old Europe. For the better part of a millennium, these institutions fought – and often bitterly – over which should be the predominant force in their societies. They hardly ever lost sight of the fact that they had a common interest in keeping the rest of the population subject to authority.
Sot it is now. Anyone who has ever taken money from big business will surely have noticed how his paymasters have been willing to use weakened forms of libertarian ideology to make specific points – but have never shown interest in promoting libertarianism as a full agenda of attack. In all cases, libertarian defenders are brought in to argue for concessions from the taxing and regulatory groups of the ruling class. They are never permitted to argue against the general legitimacy of taxes or regulations. That would risk undermining the system from which all groups –even if they might lose out in the short term – derive income and position in the long term.
This may be the common defining characteristic of a modern ruling class – a belief in the State and in the right and fitness of the groups I have described to direct it, and to gain income and status from their positions within the State. And, as in the past, class consciousness is reinforced by more than commonality of interest. I grant that, in America and to a lesser but similar extent in England, individual position is no longer rigidly fixed by birth, and it is common for people, wherever they start in life, to rise or sink according to their abilities. Nevertheless, we can still see families and networks of families that, in generation after generation, turn out individuals who occupy positions within the ruling class. Remember names like Toynbee and Gore and Kennedy and Cecil.
Otherwise, members of the British and American ruling classes share a common outlook on the world that is gained by attending the same schools and universities, and that is maintained by small but significant movements from one group to another that comprise the ruling class. In England, for example, it is common for politicians to begin or to end their careers in the more privileged big business corporations or in other agencies that look for their existence to the State. And it is fairly common for people from these groups to be recruited into senior political or administrative positions. There may be cultural differences between these groups. But these are not so great as to endanger close cooperation between them in the common project of exploiting ordinary people.
I agree that this is not an entirely satisfactory account of the ruling class. If I were a Marxist, it would be much easier. A member of the ruling class is someone who owns the means of production. I cannot supply an equally clear common defining characteristic. I cannot even put too much emphasis on the parasitic nature of a ruling class. The groups comprising a modern ruling class are parasites so far as they act as a ruling class. But they will often act both as members of a ruling class and as members of the productive class.
Companies like Wallmart and Tesco, for example, are privileged organisations. They benefit from incorporation laws that let them exist in the first place, from transport subsidies that externalise their diseconomies of scale, from taxes and regulations that disproportionately harm their smaller competitors, and in many other ways. At the same time, they provide cheaper and better food than their customers might once have thought possible. The media may be a producer or and conduit for propaganda. At the same time, it provides entertainment that people appear to enjoy. The medical establishment wants to coerce us into giving up probably harmful things like tobacco and probably beneficial things like vitamin pills, and procures laws that limit patient choice. At the same time, it does appear to be encouraging rapid medical progress in at least some areas.
Western ruling classes are not like the Soviet Nomenklatura. Many of the groups within these ruling classes have double functions inside and outside reasonably functioning market systems. Their activities are illegitimate only so far as they take place outside the market.
And so, while I do believe that the concept of a ruling class has meaning in our societies, I cannot dispute that it has problems. Nevertheless, in spite of all reservations, I do believe that the concept of a ruling class is not wholly useless, and I do suggest that those of us who have so far paid it little attention might do well to give it some thought.
NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3
If all these trough-piggers are “going to stand down” at the next election, then that could be a year away, or even never if Gordon Brown got his way. So why not now?
If they wozz fascist nazi Tories (CUTS!!!!! Schooools -n-hospitals!!!) it would be now. So why not for these people?
But they are not Tories … they are GramscoFabiaNazis. So it’s all right to stay on then. Follow the money.
Or does not Gordon Brown want 600 by-elections right now, then?
What is all this pretentious tripe, about “standing down at the next election?
Why not today? Here is just one. Pity about Julie Kirkbride though: she is probably the least cretinous of the current crop of megapiggies, and Cameron probably wanted to use her after the election, and she probably had nice boobs once (what a waste.) Never mind, there are plenty more fish in the sea.
UPDATE1:- NB!!! This does __not__ mean that we don’t still look kindly upon the LPUK.
It’s just that your lot ought to take lessons in resolution and moral fibre, and knowing how and when to Do The Right Thing, before you go onto the ice properly, from The Lady. That she was a Conservative was actually a tragedy: it was a waste.
Poor sad defeated and miserable Gordon Brown ought to have taken lessons, when he invited The Lady for tea. I found this while idly trawling:-
Daniel Hannan has got seven+ times more views in a twentieth of the time, but that does not alter the clear skill of The Lady’s perfromance on this video.
Thatcher is an Oxford chemist. This tells you something about what clever and upwardly-mobile girls from poor and/or FabiaNazically-despised backgrounds ought to be encouraged to do.
She will go down in history, which will be kinder to her than Tony Hollick is now going to be, as one of the three greatest and most important women who have ever been (so far of course.) Sorry, Tony, but you probably have some dirt about the woman!
(The leftiNazis is 1971 called her “Maggie Thatcher, milk-snatcher”. So she must have been right then….mostly we tipped the stuff down the plug-hole, while the teacher wasn’t looking – in 1950s-winters it was frozen solid anyway by the time you got it, so you wozz on a n’-hiding-to-nothing”…) (Here’s an interesting take on 1950s free milk given out by governemtns.)
Interestingly, if you wiki “milk snatcher“, you get Margaret Thatcher herself. What a surprise.
This is what wiki says:-
When the Conservative party under Edward Heath won the 1970 general election, Thatcher became Secretary of State for Education and Science. In her first months in office, Thatcher came to public attention as a result of the administration of Edward Heath’s decision to cut spending. She gave priority to academic needs in schools, and imposed public expenditure cuts on the state education system, resulting in, against her private protests, the abolition of free milk for school-children aged seven to eleven. She believed that few children would suffer if schools were charged for milk, however she agreed to give younger children a third of a pint, daily, for nutritional purposes. This provoked a storm of protest from the Labour party and the press, and led to the unflattering moniker “Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher”. Of the experience, Thatcher later wrote in her autobiography, “I learned a valuable lesson. I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit.”
She successfully resisted the introduction of library book charges. She did not volunteer spending cuts in her department, contrary to her later beliefs. Her term was marked by support for several proposals for more local education authorities to close grammar schools and to adopt comprehensive secondary education. Thatcher was determined to preserve grammar schools, which prepared more students for admission to universities. She abolished Labour’s commitment to comprehensive schooling, and instead left the matter to local education authorities.
I don’t know – do you? Please tell….
But the longer Gordon Brown stays as PM, the longer Labour (and GramscoFabiaNazis in general) will be out of power, and less able to do hurt to people.
I believe that Labour will do several things on 4th June:-
(1) Rig postal voting in rotten boroughs full of poor and easily-bamboozled people who will act as fall-guys,
(2) Stuff ballot-boxes,
(3) Procure the mis-counting of ballot-papers on the night,
(4) Lose much less badly than is predicted,
(5) Get the BBC to present it as “the public sending a message of support for this government’s overall strategic policy”.
I reproduce this comment in full, as a post (I have other stuff to do today, most of it challenging and exhausting)
“The particular brand of venom which the ruling class reserve exclusively for the BNP is nothing to do with the BNP’s left wing policies.
The reason why the ruling class despises the BNP so much is the latter’s impetus to resist a central part of the strategy of the Gramscians: the cultural and ethnic destruction of the United Kingdom and the conversion of these islands into a collection of un-countries dominated by a regional government.
If the BNP suddenly decided to promote policies to legalise drugs, support free trade, privatise the NHS and shut down most of the public sector, it would still receive a hostile reception from the powers that be on account of its racial and cultural conservative leanings.”
I am quite certain that the LPUK, in the event of increasing electoral success, will come in for the same treatment, and more especially as it is not leftist – or any “ist” for that matter.
He’s not sound on drugs, but at least he gets what Parliament is for.
I have little time to write anything else today: perhaps you others can do somethng.
The above title alone should be enough to get Tony’s goat up. I bet you all 17p Tony’s got some paleogeological gripe about Heffer (probably supported waterboarding in the Glorious revolution of 1688 or something, and the “evidence” was posthunously covered up be Sir Francis Walsingham and Robert Cecil – http://www.agentsfor1688truth.org … ) – he seems to have one about every other individual to whom I make even a tangentially-euphemistic reference!
UPDATE1:- Heffer is still “considering” standing against the gardening heffalump. Good thing too: put the wind up the shysters it will, since we need to “send a massage” that we have allowed too many of the wrong sort of people into the Houses of Parliament, while our back was turned to deal with other matters – and we need more non-careerist-charity-shop-type-old-ladies (to whom £65,000-odd with no “extras” would feel like riches), retired-Field-Marshalls-who-don’t-need-the-money, successful ex-tobacconists-who-have-risen-to-run-multiple-chains (and who don’t need the money) and the like.
Iain Dale, who ought to know better on this one, and who is too close to the current Political Class for my liking (he may catch an infection if he’s not careful) had a go at Heffer a few hours ago. Who cares? If Heffer starts a trend, there can be plenty of local people in the constituencies of others. Like Hoon, Darling, Kirkbride, Mackay, and any other scumbag grifters and graspers who refuse to fall on their swords (as they can’t afford to yet, for there may be as much as £150,000 still to be troughed before June 2010.)
I am afraid Iain has misjudged the mood: he is too close to those who still plan to gain, even a little bit, while they can. keep away from them, Iain: we will need your powerful voice to rip the pants off the next lot of mountebanks, who will also be no better than they ought to be, and will if we are not careful, become what they are.
Not time to think about what sensible and topical stuff to write…so I may just broadcast some music later. Or possibly the expanding young writers will just weaponise another dustbin for you lot. Wish they’d do a proper socialist wheelie-bin.
They’ll probably all have to go, except for about three. What is to become of us?
The Independent tries, flailingly and hyperglycaemically, to stop the BNP from winning, er, what? A couple of council seats, and maybe one at Brussels. Or even not. The BNP. Oh, come on, and think of the BNP: thikn what they are, and think what they say. Thibk, after reading their stuff, how socialist they are. So! Why do British lefties fear them?
Who cares? Those of us who can read, and who therefore can analyse parties’ policy, can see that the BNP is an Old Socialist Party. It competes with the “modern” Stalinist or Hitlerite or Pol-Potian-Left, for the votes of what it thinks, still, is the “old white working class”.
The “modern” lefties, which is to say, the british Stalinists, of which there are a few too many in the £”public sector” and elsewhere, and some are in Parliament, think this class has disappeared. Not. Not quite yet. Thye have shot their semen too early, while wanting a Stalinistically-beautiful orgasm, into the **** of global-one-nation-socialism based on the AnnaBramwelliaNazi-interpretation of how things are.
Look at its policy position on the railways for example. That’s just one. “British jobs for British workers” – that’s another: what’s the diff between that and North Korea? We are no better or worse off with the BNP in power here (and there) than we were with ZanuLiebORG – but all that we could hope is that we may get a few more years of time to mitigate the worst excesses of Stalinism, ‘coz the BNP are “not very serious at all” (ask Stalin if they shoot priests. As far as I know, they still do not do so.)
Now, it does not mean that an being [or even aspiring to be] an old fascist-lefty, as opposed to a new one, or a “Labour Party Supporter”, or a “Liberal Democrat”, is a wrong thing to be in a liberal democracy (although actually being an old-fascist-lefty is indeed wrong objectivistically and will lead to tears, famine, death and an Extinction Boundary.) You could even be a “Conservative”, and old-fascist-leftyness – unless you have your thinking-cap about your person – cannot be far from your pledge-list.
No. The problem about the BNP is that the wrong people think it stands for the wrong things. It is _not_ a “right-wing”, anti-government, anti-socialist party. It is a temporary repository for the votes of people (who would norlally be socialists) who have not thought things through properly, but who are rightly angry about what’s been done to them and theirs, by people whom they thought were on their side. In this respect it is precisely like Hitler’s NSDAP: it is the cradle of the franchhise of all those people who have felt let down by those whom they thought they trusted.
There is nothing that can be done about this matter for now, for the UK’s governing party has done all that it can – via its own policies – to bring about a great result for the BNP. This will be sad but I am afraid inevitable.
We will have to Drain The Bitter Cup. For now.
The ultrabrite red diode is too bright. That is why there is masking tape over it, he does not like it (it’s fixable)…And I must try getting the meters to deflect.
The sound quality of this posting does not reflect what you heard in the room. It was saved on a rather crap 7.1MPxcl camera, with crap sound recording, and at VGA – 640 x 480.
The “sound stage” really does work. Stuff actually comes from where it’s supposed to, in the room. I had not experienced this, with nearly all the transistor amps I have built, expcet one, which approximated electrically to a valve amp and used power N-JFets.
You can have one for £2,750.
It says at The Landed Underclass (how often can you use a perfectly functional introphrase, before it gets trite? ["it says at..."] 100 times? 1,000 times? For ever?) that people in the UK are more-than-quite fed up with the gallivantings and gallimauphryings of our Enemy Class, not just in detail but in general. I think on first sight that this is good. But being an “optimist who is in possession of all the facts“, I want to look further.
LUC indeed quotes Legiron on some points here, which is fine, and indeed I hope legiron is right about this: that people have had enough bullying, being patronised, and pushed about like livestock (his words, ibid.) and being used as a “resource”.
But Dick Puddlecote, of whom I am utterly ashamed to say I have never heard (God knows how I have missed stuff like that: I will rectify it straight away on the bog-roll, for I have no money!) says this:-
Apologies for simply pasting it , but the effect would be lost if I edited his argument, and I want those of you who do not know him to understand about this writer:-Musings on yesterday.
As mistakes go, the expenses scandal is perhaps the most blunderous in parliamentary history for MPs. The financial minutiae are paltry and largely irrelevant. A moat cleaning here, a bag of manure there, is small beer in the scheme of things, especially in such times of trillion pound debt.
The problem for Westmonster is that a spell has now been broken. Animosity is united from the full spectrum of political viewpoints.
For 12 years, Labour have ridden the wave of public trust in passing a swathe of laws which were allowed simply because MPs were respected (that, and their predilection for bent consultations, of course). One cannot subscribe confidently to the thought, though, that the previous administration were any less dismissive of the electorate, but Labour have taken the almighty piss, as discussed atthe Telegraph.
Overall, more than 3,000 new criminal offences have been created by Labour – 1,000 of them punishable by imprisonment.
Here are just a few of the things you could do before 1997 but can’t now – many of them, it must be said, forced on us by EU directives, though our government in most cases agreed them.
- Smoke in a pub or on a railway platform in the open air in the middle of the countryside, or at a covered bus stop, or in your own car if it is used for work, or in your own house if it is used as an office where outsiders may come.
- Own a horse, donkey or Shetland pony without possessing a passport carrying a picture of the animal.
- Ride off with a pack of hounds in pursuit of a fox or stag.
- Play the piano in a pub without an entertainment licence.
- Stage more than 12 events a year at, for instance, a school or church hall at which alcohol may be served without a full licence.
- Set off a firework after midnight or be in possession of a firework if aged under 18 at any time other than the period around Bonfire Night and New Year’s Eve.
- Own a pistol for any purpose, including sport target practice.
- Stage a protest of any sort, even if alone, within 1km of the Palace of Westminster, without the authority of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
- Fish in the River Esk without authorisation.
- Enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State.
- Import into England potatoes which a person knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes.
- Obstruct the work of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales.
- Imbibe an alcoholic drink on a London Underground train or bus.
- Keep a car on your own driveway without tax, even if it not being used, without filling in a form.
- Sell a grey squirrel (though you can kill one).
That’s a hell of a list, and not exhaustive.
One would assume then, that yesterday’s small protest, described as a ‘flash mob’ by the BBC, would be a right of centre action.
Unfortunately for Labour, it wasn’t. The Socialist Workers Party were in prominent, as were the Jury Team, and a sprinkling of Libertarians. The prime movers were far left and angry in their own way.
This is the problem for MPs now. They had a great little scam going which has been busted by their own greed. It has destroyed them entirely – left, right and centre.
The list above has angered just about every citizen of this country to some degree, and that is only a small selection. It makes no mention of the lies that led to the Iraq war, the ignored Number 10 petitions, the hypocritical global warming rhetoric prior to expansion of runways etc. – but no-one raised too much of a protest.
The only thing that held the whole cobbled nonsense together was that MPs were honourable and beyond reproach. That has been shattered and therein lies the anger.
Not that someone claimed for dry rot, but that they had lectured others on how to live their lives while doing so. Not that an MPs husband was wanking off to porn for a tenner, but that £5bn was being spent on ID cards which no-one wants. Not that a few thousand is being claimed by the schools minister, but that the schools are shit while he is trousering the cash.
The leftists were there yesterday, incandescent that a supposedly leftist party were acting like their mortal enemies, the rich. Capitalism may have been dealt a mortal blow by the banking crisis (according to them), but MPs have shown morals that are equally in the gutter. Those on the right are angry that their profits are being ripped to pieces by a taxing government which is populated by troughers intent on taking as much as they can get without recourse to the same system.
It is akin to a hypnotist clicking his fingers and us all wondering what we were doing by eating that onion. It’s us and them now, there is no middle ground, they are hated by every political persuasion for a variety of differing reasons. If they had only resisted the temptation, the scam could have been perpetuated for another decade or so.
As it has transpired, it’s the first time in living memory that left and right are united in protesting about the whole lot of them. They have abused their power and dumped on every single one of us. We may disagree about which aspects we dislike, but all are in unison that their positions are untenable.
The veneer of respectability has been wiped clean by a former SAS guy with a disk and there are only two options. A general election may regain a smidgeon of trust, but, as with the Poll Tax, we know now how to object and we may learn to like it.
For a future administration to reclaim public trust, an extensive roll-back of intrusive and illiberal laws is going to be required. The magic has to be re-invented by those in Westmonster, and for that to happen there will have to be a few rabbits pulled from self-serving hats.
It’s difficult to ascertain which party is brave enough to try it at the moment. The first to break rank and admit that their policies have been out of step with their voters may well steal a march.
Or are they too far gone? Too enamoured with their own self-worth to change? Probably. But unless someone reverses out of the damaging cul-de-sac into which they have navigated, the spell that politicians have enjoyed for years may be gone forever.
We are truly f888*ed, it is true. We are. Just look at the numbers. Numbers are king.
Nobody can pay back the dept that Gordon Brown has racked up. We shall be pariahs in the world, and nobody will sell us anything. Not even Mexico, or Venezuela, or Southern Rhodesia will sell to us then.
We shall have to make do with old Motorola phones, which only vibrate and have stopped ringing, and we shan’t be able to afford to “upgrade”.
We shall have to keep our Direct-X-10 graphics cards, for a few years…. (horror)
The lights may even go out. For some houtrs a day. We shall have to reboot every so often. There may not be petrol on some days.
But at least we shall have our pride and self-respect.
And some of us know how to grow stuff.