Viva Obama!

I guessed he’d win. I wish now I’d gone and put some money on him in a betting shop. He won because, while they might not like the idea of being ruled by a black man, enough American whites looked at a the grinning neocon put up against him, and decided the black man was the safest bet. I don’t suppose it helped that the grinning neocon was a Mormon.

Though, normally, it would be none of my business who rules a foreign country, America is the historic enemy of England, and is currently in a dominating position. Therefore, I am very pleased that Mr Obama is back.

First, he openly hates England – something to do, I believe, with a grandfather who was a traitor in Kenya. This is a refreshing change from the patronising embrace of a truly American Anglophobe. Open hatred is easier to deal with. It disabuses most people who aren’t thick or haven’t been bribed into the idea of a “special relationship.” It encourages moves towards the reassertion of our national independence.

Second, he is less likely than his opponent was to start a big war. I think that stands by itself. No doubt, Mr Obama is a Marxist/Moslem with a dodgy birth certificate, and is committed to destroying the American way of life through radicalisation of every institution and through mass-immigration, etc, etc.  That only makes me laugh the more: America’s weakness is England’s potential recovery. However, his plain disinclination to invade Iran is a benefit for us all.

I will add that, awful as he may be in his domestic policies, the Americans deserve him. They supported Labour in this country from about 1993 onwards. I firmly believe they bribed or blackmailed the Conservatives to throw the 2001 and 2005 general elections. Well, they can have a further taste of the medicine they made us swallow. They gave us Tony Blair. They can now stick with their own copy of him.

67 responses to “Viva Obama!

  1. Most Americans are not secret “Anglophobes” they love Britain (I am not sure why – but they do).

    As for Americans “bribing or blackmailing” the Conservative party of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to lose the general elections of 2001 and 2005……

    As so often Sean, I am not sure whether you are really raving bonkers or whether you are joking.

    The voting was closer that I expected 49.8 for Romney and 50.1 for Obama (I think it was o.1 for the Libertarian candidate).

    However, that translates into a big Electoral College win. As for Romney – if he ever produced a plan for reducing annual Federal government spending by a least a trillion Dollars (which is what needs to be done) I did not see it.

    And, yes, ending the wars would be part of the needed reduction in Federal government spending. Although not the biggest part.

  2. As so often Sean, I am not sure whether you are really raving bonkers or whether you are joking.

    I think that’s Sean having one of his raving bonkers moments.

    I am however inclined to agree that the USA deserves Mr Obama, and I hope that this time he stops holding back and forces them to experience the full horror of the politically correct puritan-cultural-marxist horror that Americans, particularly those closest associated with Mr Obama, invented and foisted on the rest of us. It might be that the greatest tragedy for Western Civilisation is that some stray nuclear weapon didn’t fall on Berkeley in the 1960s. Well, let them have it, that’s what I say (the full-bore PC, not the nuke).

    I never thought Romney looked like an adequate candidate, though he was a considerable improvement on the hopelessly tepid McCain, but then anyone would have been a considerable improvement on McCain, whose nomination was one of the most bafflingly wrong-headed lowest common demoninator compromises in American electoral history.

  3. It’s worth remembering that the full horror of Blairism didn’t descend until the second term, also. The first term was “structural”; changing the institutions ready for the second term, where the “policy” aspect was developed. It’ll be interesting to see what Obama does with this second term. If he is “their Blair”, this is the one in which he’ll really bite.

  4. This idea that the Americans bribed or blackmailed the British Conservatives to lose the elections of 2001 and 2005 ……

    “Conscript Fathers – words fail me when I try to explain the absurdity of this idea…”

    Anglophiles (not phobes) are found outside the United States – I encountered one here in Israel last night.

    The man was desperate for new places in England to visit (he had been to London and York – and to Nottingham, for some reason, and even knew where Kettering was…..the only person overseas I have ever met who does not assume I come from Kettering Ohio, if they have heard of a “Kettering” at all).

    “Have you been to Wells?” – “Wales?” – “No. Wells – it is a little city the other side of the Mendip hills from Bath, very nice place…..”

    He also wanted to go to the Northumberland coast (so I went over the interesting places – and added Robin Hood Bay in North Yorkshire). He also wanted somewhere interesting in Lancashire to visit – that is easy, Lancaster itself (often overlooked).

    I did not have the heart to tell him that many British people hate Jews – sometimes the British trait of hypocrisy (saying one thing to someone’s face and another behind their backs) is actually a good thing. The man should be able to enjoy new visits to England without ever finding out that many people hate him as soon as they find out he is Israeli.

    Of course if British Jew haters (of either the Fascist or the Marxist types) tried to kill this chap they would have a bit of a shock (he could kill several of them with his bare hands in a few seconds), but hopefully he will never find out how many British (indeed Europeans in general) want him removed from this mortal world.

    Election stuff…..

    Romney was nominated for exactly the same reason McCain was.

    The media declared him the “electable moderate” and said that the Republicans would be insane to nominate anyone else.

    Then, as soon as the Republicans nominated the man the media had anointed, the media (or course) turned on him and starting ripping him to shreds.

    People as “innocent” (to be polite) as the American Republicans do not deserve to win.

    I actually like both men (daft fellow that I am).

    But is either McCain or Romney fit to be President?

    Well as I said in my comment on Sean’s post – I have not seen any published evidence that Romney (let alone McCain) had a clue how to do such basic things as balance the budget.

    I know I am a bore on this trillion Dollar deficit (plus 16 trillion Dollar debt, plus endless zillions of unfunded mandates….) thing – but it is important.

  5. I could never make my mind up about Blair – was he really just the spendthrift social democrat he appeared to be?

    Stuff like the “Fabian Window incident” are disturbing – Mr Blair going to the Fabian Society dinner and saying how much he liked the stained glass window.

    That window is terrible – not artistically perhaps, but in moral terms. It is impossible that someone of average intelligence could miss just how evil the stuff it shows is.

    Did Mr Blair have a totalitarian agenda? I do just do not know.

    Barack Obama is easy – he was trained to be a totalitarian from the age of zero.

    Oddly enough (in view of the amount of anti Muslim stick he gets) the Muslim adoptive father appears to have been the only sane person in young Barack’s life. Barack’s Marxoid mother seems to have sent young Barack back to the United States (to be taught by her own father – and by Frank Marshall Davis) out of fear that this Indonesian man might have some “evil” capitalist influence on young Barack.

    As for the future of what is now the United States of America……

    Most likely battle and war – but I am a bit busy right now. One war at a time my dears, one war at a time.

  6. At least the left over there won’t be able to blame whatever happens on Romney as the they try to on Blulabour over here.

  7. Agreed Mr Ecks – agreed.

  8. I have been saying for some time, not just to my American friends but to British ones who so orgasmically-love the ObaMessiah, and think he is the President Of The World, but who can’t then,
    under cross-examining-pressure, articulate why.

    Some of the same ones loved (and still love) Tony Blair. They say about bpth Obama and Blair “oh but they won’t start wars – Tories start wars.” (They’ve either forgotten or are too young to remember Richard Nixon, a conservative, who took the USA out of Kennedy’s Vietnam War. They are astounded when I say I remember h-h-h-how it all unfolded in front of me.)

    The good thing about Obama’s re-election is that the impending disasters about to befall the American People as a result of this “poor choice”, will prevent them ever electing “Democrats” again. If there is an America after Obama, the America-Hater.

    Sean’s America-hatred is outshone totally by that of the ObaMessiah. As I have also said (to Sean, my very good friend and colleague, and to everyone else) it is probably more productive to try and guide the Americans away from socialism, the true destroyer of America as an idea – it’s what socialism is designed to do and what it has almost completely succeeded in doing to England. It’s too late for us here in England, but America, England’s greatest and most priceless gift to all humanity, the residuary legatiee of the job of “pointing humanity towards the door out of hell, while shouting it loudly”, might still be saved.

    I really do hope so, me, I do.

  9. I had a lighthearted argument with a student last night: a very thoughtful and intelligent 16-y-o woman who I have taught for some years now. She was so eagerly anticipating an Obama victory. She said:

    “He’s for peace and reconciliation, and Romney will just start a load of wars! And Obama’s for “free health care for everyone just like the NHS…if you’re poor in America and sick, you can’t get treatment and you die!” (my parantheses)” It’s exactly the reason I fired a girlfriend in October 1980 who insisted “Reagan just wants to blow up the world!”.

    I want the Americans, my children as civilisations go, to suffer a little rain falling now, into their lives. It is called, “disciplining them”…..
    … I want them to fall into the terrible and grave misfortunes that will now attend their future, through this electoral decision. Let them then reflect on it, if they are able still so to do afterwards.

    Don’t worry: I won’t be firing my student. She’s clever, a pleasure to teach always, is good at maths which I helped her to love and enjoy and appreciate, and she will become a good lawyer one day. (Sigh…)

  10. Can’t post on the blog. Would have voted for Romney without enthusiasm. His financial proposals -either he found a leprechaun with a pot of gold while Governor of Massachusetts otr he’s a demagogue.Votematch had the nearest candidate to my views being Virgil Gauve[?] of the Constitution Party. Sean -I’m afraid this is one of your bonkers moments. Need to replace Electoral College with Direct Popular Vote and a runoff between the top two if nobody gets over 50% on first ballot;also, 1000,00 signatures to run and every candidate on all ballots.That way,I think there’d be a eunoff next month,

  11. Obama is a centrist liberal, not any kind of Marxist; he’s a practicing Christian, not a Moslem; and his authentic long-form birth certificate shows him to have been born in America, a birth that was announced in the Hawaii newspapers just eight days after he was born.

    Oddly for an “Anglophobe”, David Cameron gets on well with him.


  12. “Centrist liberal” is a euphemism for post-marxist. Whether or not post-marxists are marxists is a matter of opinion.

  13. ‘However, his plain disinclination to invade Iran is a benefit for us all.’
    That is the one solace I took. The chickenhawk Romney would have been at it within the week – dropping bombs anyway.
    However, i still remain gloomy about Iran and think Obama will be pushed into something there – no doubt the cowards murder by drones and so-called ‘precision’ bombing. I draw people’s attention to the disgusting wretch Madeleine Albright and her infamous ‘disgusting Serbs’ comments captured on YouTube as well as her insistence that half a million dead Iraqi children was ‘a price worth paying’.

    ‘Albright currently serves as a Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. ‘
    Says it all, really

  14. What is this “Post-Marxist” claptrap??


  15. “Poststructuralist Marxism, or post-Marxism, is a theoretical viewpoint that elaborates and revises the work of Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault. Unlike traditional Marxism, which emphasizes the priority of class struggle and the common humanity of oppressed groups, post-Marxism reveals the sexual, racial, class, and ethnic divisions of modern Western society.”

    etc etc

    That kind of claptrap, Tony.

  16. Julie near Chicago

    Excuse me, Ian B, but when you write “I am however inclined to agree that the USA deserves Mr Obama,” you DO understand that you are including ME (by implication, as I do happen to be a member of that decadent body) among those who are getting what they deserve?

    If it weren’t that I’ve already expended all my vitriol on the steaming pile posted by **Doctor** Gabb (who I sincerely hope was only having us on), I would send plenty your way, Buster. ;>)

    As it is, I will take it you didn’t really mean to include me and the remainder of the 47% or whatever it was who share my view of the Sith, Its policies, Its gang, and the whole Progressive/so-called “liberal”/Hard-Leftist/whateveryoucallit philosophy, agenda, and project generally.


  17. Julie near Chicago

    By the way, Doctor Gabb, one might pass over the rest of your diatribe as either a terrible attempt at joking, or as the drivelling of someone whose nanny forgot to give him his bedtime meds. But I cannot and will not let pass your suggestion that Americans “might not like the idea of being ruled by a black man….”

    For your information, the people who voted against the incumbent include very few who would have any objection whatsoever to a “black” man–or woman, for that matter, for instance. Secy. Condoleeza Rice has been proposed as a possible Presidential candidate by serious Republicans–as President. You will recall that Herman Cain had the politically-correct skin color and yet was a contender in the primaries, and had considerable enthusiastic support. It may have escaped your notice, but back in the days when Colin Powell was Pres. G.W. Bush’s Secretary of State he was held in very high regard by conservatives generally and was often spoken of as a possible Presidential contender.

    You will also recall that Mr. Obama is no more “black” than he is “white”; with two Caucasian grandparents he’s at most half-black and half-white; in fact, depending on whom you believe, he may have more Caucasian than Negroid DNA.

    Dr. Gabb, there is a perfectly vile industry alive and thriving in my country; it is the industry of race-baiting, and its chief practitioners happen to be Professionally Black, if you take my meaning–they have at least one strand of Negroid DNA somewhere in them, and they use that to leverage themselves into positions as spokesmen for The Blacks. They are persons who have found power and lucrative careers in fomenting interracial mistrust, envy, and hatred (chiefly stirring up blacks against non-blacks). They include especially Jesse Jackson pere et fils, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan; the next tier down is occupied by such scoundrels as the REV. Jeremiah Wright.

    The American Left supports them in their endeavors, and sells their positions to the mainstream Democrats; who use the smear-cry of RRRACISSSTTTT!!! against Republicans and conservatives and people who have the sense to vote for Romney or practically anybody but that wrecker, the Incumbent.

    And you, presumably an intelligent gentleman, not only buy this garbage but have the nerve to spread it further on the pages of the Libertarian Alliance’s weblog, where many of us from all over the Anglosphere and indeed the world come in the hope of finding like-minded, sensible others with whom we can discuss our strange and not really socially-acceptable ideas about the importance of personal liberty.

    In closing, let me just say that in one particular you’re right: Americans don’t “like the idea of being ruled by a black man.”

    That’s because Americans don’t like the idea of being “ruled” by ANYBODY.

  18. Tony you know nothing about the background or lifelong associations of Barack Obama. As for “liberal” – I know this word has moved over the years, but if it is has moved so far that people like Francis Fox Piven (of Cloward and Piven) are “liberals” we might as well declare Mao and Pol Pot liberals and have done with it.

    David – I hope you are correct.

    Julie – Dr Gabb can spread whatever nonsense he likes on the LA blog. He inherited a majority of the shares to the organization (although he may have recently given them away – he wrote a post that implied that). But the latest charge (that opposition to the Comrade Barack is based on racism – a charge also made in the “Financial Times” newspaper and so on) is interesting.

    Let us assume there was a Irish American Senator by the name of Barry O’Bama.

    In 2006 this person decides to run for the Presidential election of 2008. People would say to him “Barry you were only elected in 2004 (and only got elected by smearing Mr Ryan with private papers your guys got unsealed from a marriage breakup – all a bit naughty really) – serve a couple of terms in the Senate, make a name for yourself, then in 2016 or 2020……”.

    But say this Barry O’Bama person carried on organizing a run for 2008. Local Dems would have come to him and said……

    “Look Barry I love you man – but you come from a Communist family, and you have worked with Communists all your life. Not just in college (a lot of us did that) but here in Chicago also. I am sorry Barry – but the Republicans will tear you apart…..”

    That is what would have happened to Barry O’Bama. Why did it not happen to Barack Obama?

    It did not happen to Barack – because he is black. So yes there was “racism” involved – pro black racism, people wanting to prove they were not anti black and the media covering for him (on “Civil Rights” grounds).

    “He has only been in the Senate a couple of years”.

    Shut up racist.

    “He comes from a Communist family”.

    Shut up racist.

    “He was involved with the Communists at every university he attended”.

    Shut up racist.

    “He has worked with the Marxists for decades here in Chicago”.

    Shut up racist.

    And on and on – with the corruption (intense – even by the standards of the Chicago Machine) and everything else.

    So as with so many things that the left come out with (such as the government being the puppet of business and so on) it is not just a lie – it is the exact opposite of the truth.

    The United States government is not “pro business” or even “pro big business” (bar a few “pets”), American business taxation is the highest in the Western world and regulations on corporations are more intense in the United States than in any other Western country (and have been for many years – in the United States a minor clerical error can send company directors, who never even came in contact with the document, to prison).

    And Barack did not become President “in spite of being black” (as the left claim), being black was a massive advantage to him. He was lazy at his (expensive private) school – even George Bush got good grades before he went to Yale and started getting drunk, Barack Obama did not.

    Could Barack have got into Occidental had he been white? I doubt it. He certainly could not have got into Columbia (30 years and we are still waiting to see his Columbia thesis) or Harvard Law School. Or got the job at Chicago. Just no chance of any of these things.

    And then the United States Senate (after a few years as a State Legislature Senator – in which he hardly turned up, and to which he was only elected because all other candidates were removed from the ballot) and then, after a couple of years in the United States Senate, President?

    It is all impossible.

    If “Mr Blake” wrote it as a novel it would be rejected out of hand by his publishers. But being black made it possible.

  19. The most striking thing about the 2012 US Presidential Election map is this, a majority of the physical territory of the USA voted Republican. In the end control of physical territory whether through the overt exercise of power or the passive fact of being the dominant population by numbers in the territory, is the most important detail about any state. In addition, Romney came very close to taking the popular vote, the electoral college grossly distorting the closeness of his support. I will write something more on this when the voting statistics become available.
    The liberal voices calling for the Republicans to “wake up and smell the ethnic coffee” and get with the multiculturalist project are siren voices. They are asking whites in the US to commit political suicide by allowing ethnic victimhood to become the driving force of their party as well as that of Democrats. That would remove any chance of an effective stand against mass immigration. The logic of USA ethnic and racial change tells the Republicans to use the still white majority to safeguard their position as soon as possible by stemming further mass immigration. Ethnic politics may be toxic, but if that is what all the other players in the field are peddling except you, then you have to play the same game. Accepting that it is unrealistic to expect a new party to arise which can challenge the duopoly of democrats and republicans, the sane thing for the Republicans to do would be to stand on a platform which appealed directly to whites as a group. They could start with an attack on all forms of “positive discrimination” and the stripping out of political correctness from public service; genuine action on immigration and an unambiguous defence of free expression every time Someone is alleged to have committed a pc “crime”.

    • This may be so, Robert. However, our loyalty must be to England. Our own ruling class cannot easily be dislodged while it is effectively an American satrap. Also, while an independent England might be possible in the world as it is, it is much more likely in a world no longer dominated by the United States.

      For this reason, the disintegration of the United States is in English interests. A scaling back of the American ruling class, and a return to isolationism, would be preferable for any number of reasons. Since this is not likely, however, we must hope that a second Obama presidency will hasten the forces of disintegration. Never mind the arguments about money, sooner or later, continued mass-immigration will bring about a non-white majority in many states. White majority states may then break away. Five or six, mutually hostile successor states will not have the same capacity for global domination as the present United States. Even if their is no break up, an electorate in which messianic white Protestants are no longer the majority will eventually bring about radical changes in American foreign policy.

      The collapse of American hegemony will have many positive effects. For us, it will mean the possibility of throwing off a corrupt and malevolent ruling class, without having to face down overt American hostility and covert subversion. The removal of its military capacity will castrate the New World Order. There will be no more military “war on drugs,” no more moralistic and armed crusading in defence of some very dubious ideological claims and institutional arrangements. There will be no more lunatic invasions of countries in the Middle East. I don’t know how many people have died in Iraq because of American aggression there, but it may well be in the hundreds of thousands. If he only stands firm in refusing to commit mass-murder in Iran, Mr Obama will have been a benefactor to the human race. But we must hope for a general collapse of American power that will make it irrelevant who occupies the White House.

      We need to look forward to a world of renewed diversity, in which hundreds – or perhaps thousands – of nation states and other groupings can work out their destiny in ways consistent with their moral capacity and historic circumstances.

      If I were an American, I might tremble at the thought of having Mr Obama back for another four years. But I am English. And, for all he may hate us on account of alleged rough treatment to one of his Kenyan ancestors, he is objectively the most pro-English President in his country’s history.

      Therefore, I say again Viva Obama – and never mind his domestic policies.

  20. Unfortuanately Sean, we’re looking at the end of US hegemony and the ever close nudging towards global government, which is quite possibly the worst thing that can happen.

    Should the US ever get back it’s constitution (or should Texas etc. declare independance), I would happily move there in a heartbeat, however while the US has it’s ruling class of totalitarian statists, neocon zionists, with the federal reserve and goldman sachs at the top (not that we or anyone else is in better shape), things will only get worse.

    Hopefully Ron Paul and Gary Johnson has left some sort of impression on the country to get back to it’s roots – I am less enthusiastic about the state of the UK, we can only hope for a couple of UKIP seats next election.

    • For the foreseeable future, world government will never be more than a cartel of national ruling classes. It has no powers of compulsion, but is a pretence through which national ruling classes insulate themselves from accountability. It has no tax gathering or military capacity. It relies largely on American contributions of money and armed strength.

      Take away America, and the New World Order becomes a fading ghost.

  21. Is anyone seriously suggesting that — as of now — if we were to ask Obama for the names of his two favourite political influences, he would answer “Foucault and Althusser”??

    Tony (Popper and Rawls)

  22. I doubt it, Tony, so it’s quite fortunate that I didn’t assert any such thing. Nice straw man you’ve got there, is it to frighten away the crows?

  23. JFen-

    Unfortuanately Sean, we’re looking at the end of US hegemony and the ever close nudging towards global government, which is quite possibly the worst thing that can happen.

    Two seperate issues there. “Global government” is a general trend towards internationalism, primarily driven by western nations, including and particularly the USA. There’s a reason the UN is headquartered there.

    The reality is that the plague of Political Correctness, or whatever you want to call it, is an American invention spread by US hegemony, (derived from a synthesis of American values- puritan evangelism, millennialism etc- combinged with a post-marxist ideological justification. Without America, there would be no multiculturalism, no radical feminism, no “homophobia” narrative, no “global warming” and so on and on. Nothing would serve the rest of us better than for American hegemony to collapse. There is a myth, even among libertarians, that America “alone” stands against this disease. It is the source of the infection.

    • Ian – Ah, so I’m not having one of my mad intervals after all. If I am, so are you!

    • Ian, I agree with you, I was just showing my admiration for the constituionalists.

      We have NAFTA, agenda 21, the EU, UN, Nato being over national militaries etc etc, so it’s hard for me not to see world government being called in should the US knock on collapse the world.

  24. Sean, if you define madness as any significant deviation from accepted norms, we are all mad, and we should be proud of that! :)

    One could reasonably argue for instance that a mediaeval atheist (if such a thing ever existed) was, by the standards of his own time, mad. Or, a Christian in Pagan Rome. Or a liberal in SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

    See, now look what you’ve done. You’ve got me going on about the Ancients again, damn you!

    *shakes fist at sky*

  25. JFen:
    Without the Federal Tyranny’s muscle, none of the acronym-laden shower you mention above would be able to best the average street gang, let alone dominate the world.

  26. Actually the supporters of “world governance” (they insist that people who talk about World Government are “paranoid” because they just want “world governance” – which is a bit like saying “there are no black helecopters, they are dark blue”) have long believed that the United States is the biggest thing standing in their way.

    Yes – contrary to the America haters, the real “world governance”, “international community” supporters regard the United States as the most important factor against their plans (they are America haters just as much as Sean Gabb is – in spite of their very different political points of view). Hence their massive (and successful) efforts to subvert the United States.

    For example, George Soros hates two countries more than any others – one is the United States (hence the fortune he has spent helping subvert it over many years – for Soros hatred is vastly more important than the desire to make money), and the other is Israel (hence his setting up of “J Street” and other subversion groups).

    “But Soros is Jewish”

    Sadly many of the great Jew haters have been Jewish (Karl Marx springs to mind). Although George Soros would say that he hates “Jewish nationalism” (and all nationalism) rather than Jews as such.

    I doubt his claim – after all his (Jewish) mother was an anti semite, and he described his year working with the Nazis (before they found out he was a Jew himself – and he had to flee for his life) as the “happiest year of my life”.

    For those who doubt the above….

    Where is the money profit for Soros (or for the other people who fund the Tides Foundation, the Centre for American Progress, “J Street” and all the rest….) from the vast sums of money he throws at politics?

    Jim Rogers (the ex partner of Soros) basically cares about money – Soros really cares about power (the money is just a means-to-an-end with him).

    As Dr Johnson maintained – a man like Jim Rogers is vastly better than a man George Soros.

    “A man is seldom so innocently engaged as when is after money”.

    “But Paul you now support secession”.

    I do (Republic of Texas and so on) – even though I bitterly regret the passing of the United States.

    The United States of America that was, inspite of all its terrible faults, a force for good in the world (and it was a force for good – whoever much both the Communists and the “libertarian” left laugh) has gone, it no longer exists (it has been dying for a long time).

    It does no good to pretend that it has not gone – it is like pretending that the evil Tower of Sorcery was still the good Tower of the Moon.

    Only a fool depends on alliance with a “city” that has fallen into the power of the wraiths (the slaves of the rings of power).

    Israelis please note.

    Just back from Masada.

    • Just wondering Paul, you seem very interested in alot of things Jewish and thereabout relating. Why is this? It seems very tribal.

  27. In Israel – therefore Jewish stuff on my mind.

    When I am in Ireland (the Irish side of my “blood”) Irish stuff tends to occur to me.

    Although my people are from Waterford – and I have never been there (I have only been to Ulster).

  28. By the way – in 2001 and 2005 (the specific dates that Sean cited) the American President was George Walker Bush.

    And it is not just Bush – sorry but most (non hard core leftist) Americans have a soppy rose tinted view of Britain, they would not dream of plotting against our dear old island (which they have strong sentimental feelings about).

    Especially as the island is of no great economic or military importance – having (for example) an army not many times bigger than the New York City Police Department.

    “But our soldiers are very tough”.

    No doubt, but there are not very many of them and they are not very well armed. And the supply situation is terrible – very limited supplies and very poor delivery systems.

  29. The really interesting question is – could a Republic of Texas (or whatever) stand outside a future World Government (sorry “world governance”)?

    The bet of Soros and co is “no – they would be too weak”.

    But such places might be stronger than is thought by the establishment elite.

    For example, one in four soldiers in the American army is from Texas.

    Almost needless to say……

    Mr Cameron (and Nick Cleg and David M.) would be all in favour of the “international community” and “international cooperation”.

    “You would not dare to openly express such negative thoughts about the leader of your own party”.

    I do so “dare” – the scary thing is not that the media could not care less about me (no surprise – I am a nobody), but my Member of Parliament is also ignored.

  30. Tony.

    If Barack was honest (which he would not be in public) he would reply “Cloward and Piven”.

    As for “Popper and Rawls”.

    Well Popper is a reach but you might not mean political philosophy.

    But John Rawls?

    Do not pull the leg of an old man like me Tony.

    As you know John Rawls was the archpriest of social justice – a man who believed that all income and wealth were a social product that rightfully belonged to the collective and were to be “distributed” by some political rules.

    A more committed Welfare Statist would be hard to think of.

    One might as well present the Wobble-Wobble types as an example of people who understood labour market economics, as present John Rawls as an anti statist.

    The only think that divides someone like John Rawls from the hardcore left was his nationalism.

    They want “distribution” on a world scale – he wanted it only in the context of the United States.

    However, were he a young man today, I believe that John Rawls would join the parade.

    He would be an “world governance” person – supporting “international cooperation” among the “international community”.

    • I think the prospect of the slow devaluation of the dollar as a reserve currency and subsequent creeping impoverishment of us all means all liberty minded individuals will have to look to the US and realise that they do have the greatest amount of liberty minded/small government people. And I believe Europe is a lost cause(minus switzerland, but good luck getting there) and that we will need to congregate there.

      I think a seccessive Texas or any other Paleaoconservative/libertarian state seceeding from the US is a chance to have a new example to the world, as the US was in the 19th century.

  31. Sean Gabb’s argument.

    The European Union has no armed forces – yet it still enforces its taxes and regulations.

    Sean Gabb has often spoken (and written) of the, de facto, treason of local elites – he is the last person I would have expected to forget the fact that there is an international establishment elite (even the Chinese leadership is taught in universities with this ideology) of which national elites are only chapters.

    How, for example, was Swiss independence destroyed?

    By the actions of its own local elite (for example the new Constitution) and they honestly believed they were doing good.

    There is no plot, no conspiracy – it is all out in the open.

    For example, the leadership of the Swiss Central Bank tie the Swiss Franc to the Euro – and they openly say what they are doing.

    • Whatever the situation for the Swiss, they are still heavily armed, keep ample supplies, and have a very strong sense of anti-collectivism. For me that’s a start

  32. Agreed JFen.

    One must draw a sharp distinction between the elite (those who control the universities and so on) and the people.

    And not just in Switzerland – I would say everywhere (including where I am presently sitting – the smear posters about how the Prime Minister will lead to nuclear war, very much like the smears against Barry Goldwater in 1964, are already up, I wonder who is financing these posters……).

    As for what I would like the to do to the cultural, academic, media and part of the political and financial elite, if I said that – Sean Gabb would start quoting statutes at me.

  33. By the way – I wish that Sean Gabb would stop saying “England” and “English” when he means “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” and “British”.

    It is the sort of ignorant mistake that some Americans make – the very Americans that Sean Gabb despises. People who do not know that places like “Wales” and “Ulster” exist.

    As for Comrade Barack not being a threat to “England” (Sean means the U.K.).

    Dream on you foolish man – dream on.

  34. On ethnic politics.

    One odd thing is that there are now more hispanic Republicans in high elected positions than hispanic Democrats.

    For example, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. And the Governors of Nevada and New Mexico.

    But it does not seem to make any difference.

    • Democrats have been and will always be the party of slavery, both the republicans and democrats are globalists however.

      One will mind all the often that the often religious and culturally conservative hispanics will want to shut the door after them – they went to the US to get the US, not Mexico.

      It is Republicans deliberate poor choice of candidate lost them a substancial number of votes. Could you imagine a Ron Paul ticket? Ofcourse being a man of principle aswell as being a Misesian and an opponent of the Banking cartel.
      Even if it were possible it would end the same way as Kennedy

  35. Jack Kennedy was not a foe of the Fed (or “cheap money” in general) – that is an urban legend. Although not as bad as the one that says that Lincoln (a Henry Clay Whig) was a foe of a National Bank.

    Still Rand Paul (or Ted Cruz) for 2016.

    If there is a United States in 2016.

    By the way look up Romney’s faith in “Orca”:

    The faith of a manager in technology is almost comical.

  36. Personal liberties have leading positions in Rawls’ philosophy. As Robert Nozick said, future debate on political theory will take place within a Rawlsian framework unless strong arguments can be adduced to the contrary.


  37. Ron Paul does not belong in the Republican Party.


  38. Tony – I repeat what I said about John Rawls. Your response, or rather your lack of any real response, to what I said about his welfare statism (his social justice “distribution” ideas) is noted.

    Ron Paul son Rand Paul and Jeff Flake, Ted Cruz, Jim Demint ……(and all the other roll back government types) are the future of the Republican party – if it has one. As Bush and Romney style “Progressive lite” politics have clearly failed.

    The big question for the next few years is whether the West, not just the United States but all major nations, will survive the attack of “social justice” of the unlimited Welfare State. Not just whether their economies will survive – but whether the culture (civil society itself) will survive.

  39. Paul:

    I suggest you read the Wiki article on John Rawls and his ideas thoroughly:

    The ideas of the Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance deal a comprehensive demolition of propertariansism. People are entitled to a say in the political order within which they live. If you think that a property-owning elite should be able to dictate the terms of political discourse, you undercut some of the most basic principles of libertarianism, most particularly the principle of equal liberty. The only rational objection to Rawls’ ideas came from Robert Nozick in “Anarchy, State and Utopia”; and Nozick “took the book back” before his untimely death.


  40. Tony,

    Without gettng too deep into this tangent, Rawls’s Veil Of Ignorance is an obviously broken idea, since it requires one to forget who one is; a task which is entirely impossible. His whole philosophy is basically an apologia for elitist progressivism, in which what is good for the individual is not decided by the individual, but by people like himself pretending they can veil themselves from self interest and thus reach “objective” conclusions as to social arrangements.

    He offers a strategy which is not a strategy at all. It is intrinsically useless. The idea that this “demolishes” anything, let alone propertarianism, is absurd.

  41. Use your imagination, for Heaven’s sake!


  42. Tony

  43. Tony I am quite aware of Nozick’s part recantation – indeed even at the introduction of the 1974 work he goes on about how some libertarians have nasty personalities (or words to the effect), in a context that clearly indicated people who clearly stand against the evil folk who (for example) control the universities – rather than crawling to them (I mean “trying to make friends with them” of course) were not his sort of people.

    Such a man was unlikely to withstand the wave of utter hatred and contempt that was directed against him. Whilst Nozick (as far as I know) never formally recanted – he certainly made noises to that effect.

    As for John Rawls – I have no need to read secondary texts (let alone wikipedia) as I have read the entire book (“A Theory of Justice”) as well as some of the other writings of Rawls. Indeed I actually bought the book (many years ago) and still have it somewhere.

    It was an evil work – which (for example) tries to deny the charge of envy by redefining what “envy” means.

    The whole thesis of the book is based upon the idea that all income and wealth rightfully belong to the collective (the people or whatever) as a “social product” and should be “distributed” with any non egalitarian “distribution” having to be justified as increasing the resources for the “least favoured”. As the French Revolution (and so many other examples show) if people have to “justify” their wealth then no property is safe -as the people who they have to justify their wealth to will never be convinced and will always rob and murder them (the people one has to “justify” one’s wealth to always turn out to be Kevin Carson types).

    As for the “veil of ignorance” – in this condition Rawls clearly says that people have no conception of the good and no basic moral views on justice. In which case these creatures “beyond the veil of ignorance” are not human beings and I have no interest in them.

    The supposed commitment of Rawls to liberty is just words. For example, when the “distributors” come to take one’s income and wealth Rawls will not accept any defence along the lines of “if you take my stuff you are violating my liberty” – because to Rawls it is not your stuff (it is a social product that should be ……).

    I learned long ago that everyone says they are in favour of “freedom” and “liberty” – what matters is are they in favour of capitalist wealth (i.e. large scale wealth in the means of production, distribution and exchange) and against the Welfare Statists. Without such a clear commitment talk of supporting “freedom” and “liberty” is just flatulence.

    The only good thing about John Rawls is that he confines his Welfare Statism (his desire to “distribute” other people’s income and wealth – by first denying it is really “justly” their property at all) to a nation state (in his case the United States). The mainstream left today think on a world scale (“world governance” and so on) they do not want to confine their vile social justice to the country they happen to live it.

    By the way Tony……

    If you insist on secondary works – then I would suggest you read (or re read) the writings of Antony Flew on John Rawls.

    Flew showed that Rawls did not even seem to know what the word “justice” means, and certainly did not write about it in “A Theory of Justice” (really writing about social justice, the arch enemy of justice, instead). And that Rawls was not (repeat not) a “safety net” man (as some people suppose). Of course even a “safety net” (a minimum income that government will not anyone fall below) may have (unless there are very strict limitations upon it – and very strict requirements for what the poor must do, in terms of work and so on, in return for the payments and services) terrible consequences over a long period, leading to an ever growing welfare underclass and the undermining of the cultural institutions of civil society. But John Rawls goes way beyond the “safety net” idea – that is not the basis of his political philosophy at all.

  44. Increasingly, work is being done by smart machines, at rates that humans cannot compete with. This poses insoluble problems for your preferred system. See Professor Dwight Murphey’s writings on this “Warp speed transformation of the world’s economy.” I’m thinking ahead.


  45. Tony – your latest comment has nothing to do with any of the matters that we have talked about in this thread.

  46. Yes it does. It addresses a fundamental problem with classical liberalism and other forms of “free-market” purism.


  47. Classical liberalism (and so on) is about not stealing other people’s stuff, and not telling them what to do with their own stuff.

    Super fast machines and warp drive have got nothing to do with the above.

    If these super fast machines come – good, fine.

    That still does not give you the right to steal other people’s stuff, or to tell them what to do with their stuff.

    Have a nice day Tony.

  48. By the way there is no “fundamental problem” with classical liberalism (or, if there is, it certainly is not anything you think the problem is), nor do I believe in a “system”.

    For example, if people do not want to buy the cheapest goods – and prefer to buy stuff made in communes, I have no problem with that.

    And if people choose to voluntarily give away their stuff for nothing (as opposed to sell it) I have no problem with that either.

  49. By the way Tony – I do know what you are talking about. You are talking about the end to scarcity – supposedly brought about by new technology. Karl Marx and other socialists talked about this in the early 19th century.

    Suppose that what you believe actually came to pass – and vast wealth could be produced by super machines, freeing humanity from scarcity.

    Why would not companies give away free meals in much the same way that companies give away free water in the lobby now? “Oh that poor unemployed guy – he is so poor he can not even afford his own space ship”.

    The wealth would be on such a new scale – that free food and free housing would not even be considered more costly than water fountain (just something a rich individual or enterprise handed out without even noticing – whilst concerning themselves with things that actually cost serious resources, such as their latest project on Pluto).

    David Friedman and so on used to discuss such things back in the 1960s and 1970s.

    Personally I am not interested.

    I wish you well in your high tech future.

    But as bankruptcy (due to the out of control Welfare States) is going to hit now (2013 will be worse than 2012 and 2014 will be worse than 2013) my mind is not really on the long term.

    Trying to help civil society actually survive to the long term should be our concern (the high tech utopia stuff can take care of its self – it really can).

    And civil society will only survive if the state is rolled back.

    Not just the “warfare” state – although, yes, the wars must stop.

    But the big money – the welfare state.

    And the credit bubble financial system also.

    Lending must be from real savings – not credit expansion.

    Wages and conditions of work must be decided by the market – not by “collective action” (either by the state – or by government demanded “collective bargaining” i.e. union power and mass unemployment).

    And civil society (not the state) must take on more and more of a roll in the help of the poor, the sick and the old.

    In short not just Henry Hazlitt’s “Time Will Run Back “- time MUST run back. Not in technology (good for your high tech future – I love the idea) but in the role of state and the condition of cultural institutions. Of human beings engaged in voluntary interaction.

    • Tony I just read the first few pages and it seems like typical globalist-eugenecist stuff. It mixes up division of labour and marignal utility with technology.

      It is fundamentally the most anti-human, anti-liberty doctrine out there and you only need to read between the lines to work out what they are really advocating – tyranny and mass depopulation.

  50. Alas Tony – we are not going to agree.

    JFen – now you have beaten me to the punch.

  51. Dwight writes as a classical liberal (he’s the author of “Burkean Conservatism and Classical Liberalism”, an excellent book)

    It’s a shame you didn’t read it all the way through:

    ” In any case, all conservative, classical liberal and libertarian thought is profoundly challenged. A failure to consider these issues, and to do so quickly, will make their adherents’ thinking obsolete at best, and hateful to much of the world at worst. Such a failure is not what will best serve the values, principles and institutions they revere, even though the rethinking will lead them into areas they have despised. Accordingly, one of the issues that needs to be pondered in the context is precisely, “What really constitutes the truest form of loyalty to conservatism, classical liberalism or libertarianism?””

    There’s your trouble…


    • Listen, in the first segment the author makes the assertion that he is correct in his statements – he doesn’t understand that he actually has to argue the points he is trying to make. Saying a million jobs this and a million jobs that is enough to shock the layman reader onto his side.

      His considers himself a ‘classical liberal’ yet seems to accept socialist labour theories. Completely ignoring the whole premise of division of labour, the conclusion that there is only a static amount of work is one of the prime, and oldest fallacies of economics. The printing press put the scribes out of work, the motor car put the horse breeders, and probably close to triple figures in terms of numbers of industry out of demand. These people did not suddenly run out of work and die, they retrained and specialised their labour.

      It all stems from the law of ‘what is seen, and what is not seen’.

      You need to realise that the billionaires and mega-corps which are funding the modern green/globalist/eugenics/EU/UN movements are all connected, and give little care for the human race. You will ultimately find what they promote is a human race of about half a billion, under a global government.
      These people are not arguing a point. It IS propaganda.

  52. Further to JFen’s comment, a somewhat simplistic answer to the “automation catastrophe” is this-

    When there is unsatisfied desire for goods and services, automation frees up workers to produce more goods and services. Should desire saturate, automation will result in shortening working hours.

    We are in the first state currently, and will be for the foreseeable future. Hundreds of millons of people in poor countries still haven’t got a pot to piss in, and hundreds of millions in developed countries would like products they currently can’t afford. It is ludicrous and in denial of reality to suggest that workers are in any near-term risk of running out of things to make or provide.

  53. Also-

    “You will ultimately find what they promote is a human race of about half a billion, under a global government.”

    If anything, that’s a high estimate of the population levels our green tranzi friends envisage (let alone could practically sustain) in their dystopia.

  54. I know Dwight well. He is neither a “Green” nor a Globalist. He’s a classical liberal who recognizes that the obduracy of classical liberals a century ago led to the ascendancy of socialism and fascism. Let us not make the same mistake again.


    PS: Of the books reviewed, I like Sam Brittan’s book best. He was Guest of Honour at the Libertarian International Convention hosted at Royal Holloway College in 1984 by the LA.

  55. Tony.

    The decline of Classical Liberalism in Britian was caused by the concessions of liberals (not their “obduracy”).

    For example,the concessions to corporate welfare (bank bailouts) by Walter Bagehot (the third editor the Economist magazine) and his general “concede whatever it is safe to concede” attitude.

    And of course John Stuart Mill with his “everyone agrees” (to this or that statism – which he know perfectly well that lots of people did not agree) and his waffle about “distribution” being the thing that “we” (the government) needed to concentrate on now…… all total rubbish.

    As for your Welfare State ideology – it will go bankrupt, it is going bankrupt already. Both financially and culturally this ideology of ever growing government is destroying the West.

    If you can not see that (even now) I give up with you.

    I am too old and too tired to waste what time I have left with people who insist on sticking their heads in the sand.