David Miliband and the Labour Party: A Suicide Pact Made in Heaven?


 Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 197
23rd September 2010
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc197.htm

 David Miliband and the Labour Party:
A Suicide Pact Made in Heaven?
by Sean Gabb
 

 I have written very little this year on politics. This is not a product of idleness. Nor does it show any fading of interest. The reason is that I have been hard at work on two other projects. These will, I hope, advance the cultural agenda of our Movement. I hope they will also help save my daughter from the trouble of having to work for a living. But they are now finished. Next week, or the week after, I must begin another, and this will again take me partly out of immediate circulation. For the moment, though, I have both time and inclination to write about politics.

Who Should Lead the Labour Party?

I will begin by looking at the election of a new leader for the Labour Party. The voting came to an end late yesterday afternoon, the 22nd September 2010. The result will be declared on Saturday the 25th. I am too late, therefore, to try influencing the outcome – not, of course, that my recommendations would have had any influence on those able to vote. What I can do is to explain which of the five candidates is most likely to serve the interests of England. To be specific, which of the five is most likely to diminish the chance that Labour will ever win another general election?

I will dismiss Ed Balls and Andy Burham out of hand. There is no point in denouncing them as sordid apparatchiks – as principals and as willing accomplices in treason and tyranny. All five are that. No one who has sat steaming for any length of time on the dung heap that is New Labour can be regarded as other than a beast in human form. Their disqualification from our point of view is that they are both white and English. This means that, with careful presentation, they can be dressed up as champions of the common man. Since, even with a better government than we currently have, the next few years will be difficult, we cannot afford a credible Labour response to the inflation and unemployment that are the results of the artificial boom engineered by Gordon Brown.

I will also dismiss Diane Abbott. Many people tell me that a black woman cannot become Prime Minister in England. I am not too sure of this. There is, I have no doubt, much more colour prejudice in this country than fear of the law and fear of informal penalties will allow to be expressed. At the same time, I doubt if there is enough colour prejudice to stop her from being an effective party leader. We must consider that, unlike all the other candidates, she does look like a normal human being. Her opinions may be both stupid and malevolent. But she always manages to look good on television. At the same time, she could count on the undivided support of non-white voters that Mr Obama found so useful in America. And there are just as many middle class fools in this country as in America who would think that supporting a black politician was atonement for the past five billion years of white racism. We cannot afford Diane Abbott. She may be less dangerous than Messrs Balls and Burnham. Still, she is, in terms of her own abilities, and in terms of the coalition of forces that would gather round her, too dangerous to consider.

This leaves us with the two Miliband brothers. And these are certainly worth considering. They have the great advantage for us of being Jewish. Now, while there are Jewish organisations that get money and support by insisting that England is two steps from our own Kristallnacht, I doubt if many English people have even noticed the shape of the Miliband noses. Of those who have noticed, I doubt if more than a few thousand think ill of it. Native anti-semitism is so rare that it has to be hunted out, where not actually fabricated. And do bear in mind that the British National Party, which is our largest white nationalist organisation, welcomes Jewish members and is vaguely pro-Israel in its foreign policy. However, the non-white population is solidly anti-semitic. Moslems, black Christians, whatever – they largely hate Jews with a ferocity not known in England since the middle ages.

It may be disagreeable that we must share a country with such people. But it would be rather funny to see Labour hoist by its own petard. After 1997, Labour Governments knowingly encouraged the immigration of between seven and ten million non-whites into this country. They did so because it accelerated the upward redistribution of wealth to which modern ruling classes are all committed. They did so because it helped break up the solidarity of the ruled that is another ruling class project. They also did so because they believed that the new arrivals, once they had been waved through the citizenship formalities, would mostly vote Labour. And they will – so long as an English or a Scotch man or a black woman is in charge. They will not vote, I think, for a Labour Party led by a Jew. And this is regardless of how seldom either Miliband goes into a synagogue, and regardless of how little public enthusiasm either has shown for Israel.

This will be still more the case if the Liberals get the electoral reform that the Conservatives may not be able to deny them. So far, the two main parties have been held together by the iron logic of the first past the post system. I, for example, voted Conservative in this year’s election not because I thought David Cameron would be a good Prime Minister – but because the Conservatives were the only force able to get Labour out of office. I normally vote for the UK Independence Party. I would, in other than general elections, and if a candidate were to stand where I live, vote for the Libertarian Party. But I voted Conservative in the general election because not to vote Conservative would have risked another Labour Government.

It is the same with non-white electors. They might swallow their prejudices and vote for a Labour Party led by a Jew if the alternative was to let in a Conservative Government. But the alternative vote system will allow them to give their first preferences to Islamic and black nationalist parties. Their second preferences might be enough for Labour. But the loss of first preferences might be enough to keep Labour from ever winning a majority of the English seats. And the accompanying redistribution of seats would make Scotch votes far less important than they have been.

And so, my prayers are with the Milibands. I should now say, though, which of the two brothers I prefer. My preference is for David. His brother, Ed, has several disadvantages from our point of view. He was not in Parliament when his Party voted to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has distanced himself from these atrocities. He has also accepted that identity cards and other police state laws were not entirely good things. Worse, he was Environment Secretary in the Brown Government, and always gave the impression of believing the drivel he was given to read out in public. He looks thick – but a visible lack of intelligence has never been a disadvantage in English politics. Apparent sincerity has always weighed more than cleverness.

David Miliband, however, is irremediably tainted with all the horrors of the Blair and Brown regime. He supported those wars. He supported every police state law that was brought forward. And he has all the commitment in his speaking manner of a Kremlin teleprinter. He looks thick. If we leave aside his ability to crawl nearly to the top of the Labour dung heap, he probably is thick. But, where his brother does not, he also manages to look like a supercilious fraud. I do hope he wins. Indeed, I am so convinced he would be the right man for the job, that I did briefly think of handing over a £1 joining fee to the Labour Party in order to vote for him. With David Miliband in charge, we might hope for a repeat at the next election of Labour’s 1983 performance.

The Worthless Conservatives

Now, here I must say, as clearly as I can, that, I do not want a melt-down of Labour support because it might give a clear run to the Conservatives. The reason I want the Labour Party to vanish up its own bottom is because this enables our own attack on the Conservative Party.

I welcomed the present Coalition Government in May because it was not Labour. I am grateful for the limited return since then to constitutional government. Of course, I was pleased when the new Home Secretary told the police that they could not stop people at random in the street for searches and questions. I am delighted that the Government has abolished identity cards and shut down the National Identity Register that was supposed ultimately to store every last details of our lives – including DNA samples – so we could never again live privately in freedom, and never again remake ourselves. I hope that the unequal extradition treaty with America will be amended, and that the European Arrest Warrants will be made harder to enforce that has so far been the case. I look forward to many other retreats from the Labour police state.

Even so, David Cameron does not preside over a government of reaction. Unlike in 1660, there will be no legislative voiding of the previous revolution. The multicultural agenda has been left untouched, and natives will continue to suffer official discrimination and censorship. The most malevolent agencies of the Labour State will not be closed down. There is no chance that we shall leave the European Union. As for the cuts in government spending we have been promised, these will not abolish the clientage to which millions of people have been reduced. I cannot be bothered to go through the numbers. I am, however, assured that, in real terms, the British State will spend more next year – after the Osborne “cuts” have begun – than it did in 2005, when Gordon Brown was bribing us with our own money to keep him and Tony Blair in office. If there are cuts, these will be felt by ordinary people, who will not get the state healthcare and pensions and education they were promised. The bureaucracies that meddle in the smallest details of our lives will be left mostly intact. Above all, perhaps, the new Ministers are at least as committed as the old to the “climate change” hoax. While enriching and legitimising the ruling class, this threatens ordinary people with impoverishment and slavery on a scale that makes the totalitarianisms of the last century almost benevolent.

Conservative Members of Parliament have told me, in private, that this is not a purely Conservative Government, and that nothing can be done without the consent of their Liberal Democrat partners. There is something in what they say. Like most other people, I had never paid much attention to our third party. Since it was never likely to get into government, there was no point investigating its stated or actual beliefs. I did think, nevertheless, that its economics were broadly mutualist, or even Georgist, with a dash of Keynes. I was wrong. I am not sure who does vote Liberal Democrat. But its Ministers are behaving in office as if they were just as much the representatives of public sector employees as the Labour Party. They are state socialists without New Labour’s stiffening of ex-Communists.

But, if there is something in what my Conservative friends tell me, it is also true that a purely Conservative Government would have been hardly any different to what we have. I never believed that a Cameron majority would result in a government of reaction. I did believe that withdrawal from the European Union would be firmly ruled out by Mr Cameron, and that he would buy off most complaints from within his party by keeping identity cards. At least this has not been necessary. It is, however, undeniable that the Government we have is committed to working within the terms set by Tony Blair before he went barking mad.

I repeat – I welcome many things that have been done, and that are yet to be done, by the Coalition. This does not make me a supporter of the Coalition. The lesser of two evils is less evil – but it is also still evil.

Do you remember the Thermidore Reaction? That was when the French Jacobins were rounded up and sent to their own guillotine or packed off somewhere nasty to die of yellow fever. Do you remember the Soviet de-Stalinisation of the 1950s? That was when the Gulag was slimmed down a little, and there were private mutterings that Stalin himself had gone a little too far. Well, to speak in these terms about England may seem hyperbolic. But we really are living through our own equivalent of these reactions. Labour’s revolutionary terror is being wound down. But the revolution itself remains the governing consensus. No one presently in or near office has the slightest inclination to return us to a situation where we can call ourselves the free citizens of an independent country.

I do not believe there is any chance in the short term or a genuine reaction. One commenter on the LA Blog tells me of his plan for a violent overthrow of the Establishment, to be followed by the trial and execution of perhaps ten thousand traitors and other class enemies. But I am not at all persuaded that violence is either desirable or possible. Other people tell me that we should give all assistance to some other party that may then get elected. But I am hardly more persuaded that any of the alternative parties currently on offer is up to winning a general election. If we are to get out of our present mess, it must be after a process of delegitimisation that will include destroying the Conservative Party. Only then will some other force emerge that may restore something like the old order – or create a new order that will serve something like the same purpose.

What Do We Want?

Oh – I see I have just used the phrase “new order”. I could change this to avoid the pointing of Marxoid fingers. Instead, I will make it an excuse to spell out what I actually want. I want to live in a country where everyone has freedom of speech and association, and where justly-acquired property is secure from confiscation and can be freely enjoyed. In such a country, such government as remains is limited in every exercise of power. It is limited, by a bill of rights, in the laws it can make. It is limited, by strict procedural safeguards, in its enforcement of the laws. There is a clear division between state and voluntary activity, and state activity is small in both nature and extent. In such a country, furthermore, every official is accountable, at one or two legal removes, to the people who pay his salary; and the nation as a whole is free from outside control.

We do not live in such a country. To what extent the old order – the mixed Constitution of Church and State, the hegemony of the landed interest, and so forth – secured these things is worth arguing about elsewhere. It is undeniable that the present order of things, that emerged during the twentieth century, does not. This order is one of growing administrative despotism – a despotism sometimes directed by those holding the traditional offices of state, but just as often by those whose names and even functions are unknown to the people. It is also an order, as said, where wealth is systematically redistributed upwards to those public and formally private interest groups that exist because of state privilege.

The new order that I want – and that I largely believe is wanted across our Movement – is one in which most state agencies will have been shut down, and in which the legal and administrative privileges that maintain big business, the credentialed professions, the centralised media, and all other sinister interests, in existence will have been revoked. This does involve a revolution of one kind or another – a revolution, or a counter-revolution, or just a reaction: call it what you will. But, if the people ever take to the streets to demand change, this will have been preceded by a delegitimisation of the present order of things – just as the ancient régime in France withered after the 1770s, and the traditional autocracy in Russia withered after the 1880s. Long before a visible blow can have been landed against it, this present order of things will have been made incapable of defending itself. Of course, it must – as will every order founded on a denial of human nature – perish from within. But this inevitable fall will have been hastened by our own relentless critique.

I want to live in this kind of new order. If I cannot have it for myself, I want it for my daughter. And if someone important wants to construe my definition of “new order” as evidence that I am a neo-nazi terrorist, that only shows how far we currently stand from achieving any of it

Certainly, though, no escape from the present order of things can be easily urged so long as the Labour Party remains a credible danger to what freedom we still have. I can already see the Ministers and their smug Tory boy assistants go about their business, challenging every objection by asking “You wouldn’t want Labour back – would you?” And my own answer is “No, I do not.” I do not want Labour back. Life under Khrushchev is better than life under Stalin. The jeunesse dorée are better than the sight of those hags knitting under the guillotine. Better the Stupid Party than the Evil Party.  And so, while another Labour Government remains more than an outside possibility, the work of counter-revolution cannot be pressed on. It is not to be put on hold, least of all forgotten. But it cannot reasonably claim all our effort.

That is why David Miliband must be our man. I think the worst choice the Labour Party could make – from our point of view – is Ed Balls or Andy Burnham. The best choice really is David Miliband, with his invisible moustache and jerky movements and his inability to do other than defend every monstrous act of the Blair and Brown Regime. Bearing in mind how we have shambled through the past thousand years of our history, England has been an astonishingly lucky nation. Let us hope, this coming Saturday, that our luck will hold.

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/ya4pzuh

About these ads

21 responses to “David Miliband and the Labour Party: A Suicide Pact Made in Heaven?

  1. 100% full marks – I cannot improve on your writing and I agree – While I would like to see politicians hanging from lamp posts I know this will not happen. The worst for them will be to run away to France or Italy and watch the smoke from Britain darken their sun. We shall leave the EU as the EU will self destruct despite Merkel’s desire to Islamize Germany. The Swedes are stirring as are the French. The British are by and large too stupid, left defenseless and ignorant of their history by the malevolence which is Marxism and Labour. So we have to wait and watch and pray and inform as the slime oozes higher and higher in Westminster. There will be a revolt and it will be ugly. I do not see England restored and yet for the sake of my children I hope it is because the alternative is that they shall live abroad where the governments do not hate their own kind quite as much as the filth here do.

  2. The problem that I have with the “Labour Party” is exactly to do with why it is, in a liberal pluralist democracy, allowed to continue to exist, considering its record and “form” for the last 100-odd years.

    As a libertarian, I suppose that I have to go along publicly (and even in the inner recesses of my soul, were I to even if I have one) with the notion that the lould and very public trumpeting of dangerous and inflammatory tosh, all of which is contrary to common sense or human nature, ought to be allowed, so long as it’s without menaces. People must of course be left alone, so as to be permitted to make up their own minds about whether someone is a nutcase or not.

    But why ought we here on this place to care about who “leads the labour party”? To me it is this: it is like deciding whether Beria or Dzherzhinsky would be more friendly to our Empire’s existence, in the old USSR. We ought to cast off our obsession with these shades of grey, and go for the jugular. We ought to want the “Labour Party” dead, abolished, razed, its records destroyed and burned, its leadership morally-decapitated (not literally, I suppose we can’t really execute any of the thieving murdering bastards, constructive though this would undoubtedly be.)

    People ought to be educated to want to feel ashamed that they ever voted for such a thing. The real mathematical unsustainability if its “model” ought to be utterly obvious to 8-year-olds. Indeed, it would be if today’s 8-year-olds were taught anything useful whatsoever. (But their education has been hijacked by that very collection of Stalinists which we yet dignify with the label “Labour Party”.

    The trouble with all these Stalinist millenarians is that they want to force everyone to conform to their “model”. For me, this absolves us utterly of any blame or responsibility for their downfall, or their subsequent injury or losses, if we in return have to choose to force them to stop.

  3. I just don’t buy into the idea that the ConDims are any better than NuLab. I don’t buy into the false left-right paradigm. They’re all fascists, dancing to the tune of the oligarchs of the global mega-corporations.

    There is only one way out of this, which is why America is the last, best hope of Earth. And the chance of American patriots succeeding in restoring their republic is, at best, vanishingly slim even with all their guns.

  4. Oh, but the are better – in the same way as the Sixth Cycle of Hell is better than the Seventh.

  5. Has there ever been a better time to push the libertarian philosophy and true liberal economics?

    Are the people convinced that their leaders know what they’re doing? Do they trust them? Certainly not. Are we short of examples of the folly of state intervention?

    To distinguish between tory and labour is pointless, and we don’t have time to wait for the conservative party to collapse – you may as well be waiting for the Leaning Tower of Pisa to topple over.

    JohnnyPate,
    I agree with you, we must do what we can to help them, and ourselves.

  6. Dear Dr Gabb, I am can only express my unstinting admiration for your post and all its contents. I wish only that we could get through this delegitimation phase a.s.a.p., but these things often take decades.

  7. We can hurry things along by laughing at these people a little more often.

  8. David, it exists, and the entire Enemy Philosophy exists, because its/their blandishments appeal to what people have come to believe to be morally virtuous. We can only get change when we can twiddle the moral dials of our fellow men. They believe- the majority millions of our fellows believe- that Statism achieves virtuous aims; healing the sick, feeding the destitute, protecting waifs, and thus the efficiency of the economic and social model is seen as very much secondary. To use an analogy, at the moment arguing for free markets on the basis of superior efficiency is heard in much the same way as arguing for the legalisation of baby buggery to reduce the costs of policing. It is immoral. It is unacceptable. Nobody will listen.

    Humans have lived in all kinds of societies throughout history, and it seems to me that the key to making a populace accept some form of society is to convince them- at the gut level- that it is virtuous, and to support it and participate in it will earn them the admiration of their peers. The Spanish were aghast at the charnel house they found in Central America, but the average Aztec in the street thought it must moral and virtuous to sacrifice men women and children to the Sun God to achieve the social good of reliable harvests etc. An Aztec’s moral dials were set to totally different settings to those of the Spanish Christians who arrived who quite rightly (from our perspective) felt like they had walked into Hell on Earth.

    So to defeat the Enemy, we are going to have to change the moral assumptions of our fellows, who are trapped in an Aztec madness. Labour Party supporters believe they are doing great morally good things, and most of our fellows agree with them. It is our job, ultimately, to capture the moral initiative. Once people can be convinced that liberty is the greatest moral virtue- which we ourselves believe at a gut level, even if we don’t realise we think of things that way- then Labour and all their fellow travellers will come to be seen as immoral and lose their power.

  9. Waffling on, I think one interesting example is communism. We tend to presume that communism is inherently incompatible with human nature, but I wonder if it is possible for people to accept it as morally superior- even living under its misery. It seems to me that the Soviet project ultimately failed because the mass of the people were never convinced to believe in it. They knew- or most of them knew- that there were better alternatives. But it seems to me- and I may be wrong about this- that the population of North Korea, from what I’ve seen of it, which I admit is limited- really do accept their regime, and as a Libertarian that is disturbing to my belief that there is some kind of human nature which always ultimately rejects such impositions as communism. So I hope my perception is wrong.

  10. @Sean
    I don’t know if laughter wil be enough, when one is faced with police-droids sporting MP5s (or is it 4s? I don’t remember) and who have been specially-brought-up (in special schools) by the Enemy-Class, to fire upon whoever they are ordered to fire upon. Like Jean-Charles de Menezes. And that barrister-fellow the other day in the papers.

    The Warsaw-Pact Communists never really took over the schools: or if they did, they never really took over families in the way quangos and bureaucrats have been enabled to do here. Perhpas they didn’t have the benefit of the most modern post-capitlaist manuals, written in our universities in the last 30 years. Or, perhaps it’s because sex was only invented here in 1963, and so socialism was therefore enabled to take off with new, totally-unsullied generations who never new about the idea of individual liberty, having been born by sex. None of the Warsaw pact countires, none of them, not even the USSR, could produce a police force that could willingly and sightlessly fire on its own people. Look at East Germany, and Prague in 1989.

    But I believe that one exists here now. Laughter will get us shot. We are running out of time.

  11. “Labour Party supporters believe they are doing great morally good things, and most of our fellows agree with them.”

    I wonder if the statists are as confident in their moral superiority as they seem? The amount of propaganda (subtle and otherwise) emanating from the MSM, and in particular the BBC, indicates to me that they feel the need to continually ram the message home ad-nauseum. After all, can’t have the proles thinking for themselves, can we? They might come up with all sorts of inconvenient ideas!

    Libertarian alternative to Eastenders, anyone?

  12. @Ian B
    Ian, we really really need a considered big piece form you on the LA blog. Or it could be published as a LA pamphlet. Don’t know what we could do about money if it was a real important biggie, but perhaps Sean and the Treasurer might be able to make some offer (LOL)

  13. @ david davis – The Warsaw-Pact Communists never really took over the schools: or if they did, they never really took over families in the way quangos and bureaucrats have been enabled to do here. Perhpas they didn’t have the benefit of the most modern post-capitlaist manuals, written in our universities in the last 30 years.

    The Poles retained Christ. The British governing class called upon antiChrist and they got what they wanted. It is religion that prevented the State communists from breaking the people and many Polish government people remained believers.

  14. @P Robinson
    They have deliberately made “proles” who do not – and no longer can if they even knew how to try to – think for themselves. The purpose of “edgy television” was just this thing. It’s what the BBC is now for.

    @Peter
    Cheering to see you, good old warrior (let’s wipe off the projected blood and spit on our hands for a breath….) We all KBO in our own way, it’s all we can do now, isn’t it. I’m not optimistic, but then I guess I never was. How about you?

    The failure of the Warsaw Communists to de-Chritianise Poland was a major blunder on their part. I can’t imagine how they got away with such a howler, and with Stalin in power just over the fence at that time too. He’d have shot the Polish Archbishops, and priests too I am sure. Did he think it would be too expensive, in time and men and tanks and petrol, or what? he had The Bomb by 1950 and could have made faces at us if we decided to support the Poles against their forced deChristianising (and we might even have gone to that too, in the early 50s – Churchill was still PM remember!)

  15. Forcibly de-religionising people is extremely difficult. As per my previous post, you’d have to convince them that their religion is immoral. Since for most religious people, their moral code is derived from their religion, that is extremely difficult.

    Imagine we conquered Arabia and tried to de-Islamise it. A gargantuan task; probably impossible.

  16. Peoples have changed their religion in the past, it does happen.

    I think in the case of the Arabs, if you killed their leaders and ordered them at gunpoint to become Christians, using total force, the Arabs would probably respond. Culturally they are programmed to respond to force.

    Of course, there is no way we (The West) would ever be prepared to act in such a way. Others might not be so scrupulous. I imagine that the Indians could one day be pushed just a little too far by Pakistan.

  17. Ed Miliband’s won it. Oh well, close enough!

  18. I suppose it could have been worse. At the very least, we can all have a good laugh at David Miliband.

  19. Their hatred will consume the party. It’s going to be glorious.

  20. @CHI and IanB
    Many types of “Arabs” are Christians already, some have always been so, and most recognisably separate populations of then were either Christian (and in some cases even Jewish) or other sorts of stuff before Mohammed appeared on the scene.

    Although Ian is substantially correct, I suspect that in the specific case of Saudi Arabia CHI is right.