Leviathan rising

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 03:14.

At the beginning of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine called on his fellow colonists to forge a new society where power was dispersed among the citizens. “Let the crown … be demolished,” he urged, “and scattered among the people whose right it is.”

This sentence is taken from a speech on Saturday to the Fabian Society conference ‘Change the World’ by David Milliband, Britain’s Jewish Foreign Secretary. Paines’ words resonate strangely in the nationalist mind. For who, exactly, are “the people whose right” sovereignty is?

But, of course, the Fabian Society is the senior left-liberal and one-time socialist political movement in Britain, and none of its company think as we do. Its company thinks in ways that would alarm not only us, but any normal Briton were these thoughts not coated in electoral blandness and the appearance of the bien pensant before they are uttered.

This is how Miliband continues his speech:-

Today Paine’s world is coming into view. Around the world there is what I call a ‘civilian surge’. Born of the death of deference in the North and West, the collapse of communism in the East, the spread of democracy in the South. Everywhere it is the rise of the better educated and if not better educated better informed citizen who knows, in real time, about how other people, often far away, live their lives; who is more distrustful of traditional sources of authority; who is yearning for greater freedom and power; who is more able through technology to produce and distribute information, more able to hold power to account.

... This civilian surge embodies the ideal of progressive politics, for what is progressive politics if not the desire to see more people as actors rather than spectators in life’s dramas?

But alongside the rising tide of human rights and democratic values there is the reality of growing insecurity. There are the local problems of crime and anti-social behaviour, personal angst caused by more fragile families and less permanent relationships, but the global threats of climate change, financial instability, and transnational terrorism are potent and invasive.

Freedom and security have always been the twin aims of progressive politics. The unique fact about the present time is that people feel more free but less secure.

What a humbling statement for a High Priest of progressivism to make to a Progressive Church. And yet to the nationalist mind nothing could have been more predictable than the destructiveness of the politics of anti-nation, anti-family, anti-Nature.

Miliband draws attention to the two “not incompatible” but never quite “reconciled” left-traditions of radical liberalism and social democracy. But it is as if “the local problems of crime and anti-social behaviour, personal angst caused by more fragile families and less permanent relationships” have punched huge holes in radical-liberal confidence. Nowhere in his speech does he raise his eyes to the distant horizon of new and inspiring individual freedoms. There are none. So the level of it is “more power to neighbourhoods to shape local services and own assets, with more power for citizens through direct payment and personal budgets in health and social care.” The freedom train rattles and lurches on, blindly, shamelessly, but quite purposelessness now, and for the most part translated onto a stage that is too mundanely depersonalised to carry meaning for the personal life as, indeed, the great, freeing cult of the individual was meant to carry meaning.

As a political movement social democracy is unquestionably more intact, though that, too, has been assailed by doubt. Dench and Gavron, David Goodhart and Robert Putnam have all quietly, inconveniently pointed to the confounding of social justice in and by the MultiCult.

So all that will remain, after homosexual adoption, transsexual equality, religious hate speech legislation ... after the anti-majoritarianism, the racial dispossession, the dissolution of nationhood ... all that will remain is the burgeoning size and power of the state. And out of that, with the force of inevitability, will flow a matching appetite for legislation and for control. How but through these things will a state machine that sows chaos for freedom, and has no further democratic raison d’etre, hold on to its monopoly of power? Leviathan will rise in a last desperate, totalitarian attempt to maintain the unmaintainable status quo.

If we care to look we can see it rising already.

For example, a domestic application of naked power, however honeyed by political skills, will necessarily excuse itself with a foreign fig-leaf or two - what Miliband calls “values”, but is simply a coercive internationalism. And he duly addresses UK foreign policy issues further on in his speech:-

... We are required to ask big questions about what we are willing to do to extend individual rights around the world

... Universal values are real and popular. They raise really hard questions about how they are spread, but let’s not be ashamed to talk about them. They are part of our tradition, not a neocon invention.

... In the 19th and 20th centuries foreign policy and progressive values were often uncomfortable partners. Interests predominated over values. The new context holds out huge opportunities for progressive politics.

... In the 21st century, we need to apply both the social democratic and liberal traditions to maximise the opportunities from globalisation and manage the risks.

Tom Paine the English radical, Tom Paine the American revolutionary, Tome Paine the member of the French National Convention might, I suppose, have admired such apparently humanistic objectives. But they mean nothing whatsoever to the true peoples of Britain. They would garner scarcely a vote at election time. They quite wonderfully depict the detachment into domestic policy blandness and irrelevance, and the shift to action abroad, that doubtless must afflict a destroyer of nationhood. This Leviathan’s public allegiance will be to peoples far away who have absolutely no allegiance to it. If that sounds laughable, even crazy, it’s because that’s what a politics of spreading the Western social democratic and economic model is.

The only question is whether we the people can survive long enough to strike the blow that brings Leviathan down. Pray that we can, and that for our children’s sake it is a political one

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:06 | #

“Social democracy” as it is called, doesn’t have its allegiance to any “peoples” nor to “individuals”.

At best “social democracy” is a tyranny of the majority of people inside some proposed geographic boundaries. At worst it is a tyranny of the minority. Which of these it turns out to be is entirely in the hands of those who decide how to enforce the vague wish list of “universal human rights”.

“Human rights” will remain a sorry joke until the primary franchise is exercised by individuals voting with their feet to redraw territorial boundaries to support mutually consenting residence—mutual consent based on shared belief in some simple set of propositions that they choose, including propositions such as “ethny is extended family”.

Posted by calvin on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:47 | #

“But alongside the rising tide of human rights and democratic values there is the reality of growing insecurity. There are the local problems of crime and anti-social behaviour, personal angst caused by more fragile families and less permanent relationships, but the global threats of climate change, financial instability, and transnational terrorism are potent and invasive”

I believe that the latter is a reaction to the former. All of the problems that have arisen to challenge the newly acquired individual freedoms have their genesis in elite policies, like human rights, the renouncement of corporal and capital punishment, the abandonment of social taboos that upheld functional nuclear families and so on, that are deeply unpopular. The imposition of these destructive initiatives happens in accordance with the will of an elite that has disproportionate control over, and access to the mechanisms of power in society, it is the authority of these self-same elites that is challenged by these new found freedoms.

Posted by skeptical on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:39 | #

Guessedworker,

So all that will remain, after homosexual adoption, transsexual equality, religious hate speech legislation ... after the anti-majoritarianism, the racial dispossession, the dissolution of nationhood ... all that will remain is the burgeoning size and power of the state. And out of that, with the force of inevitability, will flow a matching appetite for legislation and for control. How but through these things will a state machine that sows chaos for freedom, and has no further democratic raison d’etre, hold on to its monopoly of power? Leviathan will rise in a last desperate, totalitarian attempt to maintain the unmaintainable status quo.

Nicely written.

Tom Paine the English radical, Tom Paine the American revolutionary, Tome Paine the member of the French National Convention might, I suppose, have admired such apparently humanistic objectives. But they mean nothing whatsoever to the true peoples of Britain.
...
This Leviathan’s public allegiance will be to peoples far away who have absolutely no allegiance to it.
...
The only question is whether we the people can survive long enough to strike the blow that brings Leviathan down. Pray that we can, and that for our children’s sake it is a political one

Well, if the solution is going to be political then we need to find a way to reach our people’s minds. We need to be able to convince them of their racial dispossession and the consequences thereof. And if we can’t convince them through rhetoric then we need to find a way to rouse them to our banner more directly.

As you might say, it remains an open seemingly intractable problem.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:01 | #

skeptical,

Let there be no mistake, we are, like the blind men and the elephant, feeling our way around a revolutionary animal. The time is already late. The forces opposing us are extraordinarily well-established. We are not the best or wisest men for this kind of work. Our activists and their “leaders” are, for the most part, single-issue types without much interest in complexity. They don’t listen much to what we have to say. But in their encounter with the mainstream they are hopelessly outgunned, excluded, viciously defamed and sometimes legislated against.

The problem is formidable. But ...

We have the benefit to our side of truth, Nature and justice. And we have energy. We also have no choice but to go on stating the case for our people as best we can, and trying to piece together a strategy for success.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:59 | #

“Our activists and their leaders” (—GW)

Speaking of which ... What’s been the final shake-out of the internal BNP crisis which MR.com blogged about the other month (the one where some unknown culprit maliciously sicced the Brit feds on a BNP official who had the pleasure of receiving the “knock-on-the-door-by-your-friendly-neighborhood-feds-bearing-search-warrants” who then saw his home ransacked for several hours and computers, personal files, and other important property and personal effects carted away in police vans before his shocked neighbors while he and his terrified wife were ordered to sit still on the sofa and not make a peep or move, not even go to the bathroom without an armed guard)?

(Oh I forgot ... there is no federal government force in all this, whether in Britain, the U.S., or Europe ... none of this is being applied by the feds of these various countries with heavihandedness, a reign of terror even, no, everything the other side is doing to crush ordinary folk is consented to by those ordinary folk after long airing of all the issues through extensive honest public debate of all that the new policies portend and after having been thoughtfully voted on by those ordinary folk in honestly-worded, plain-spoken, binding referendums using simple wording telling the truth of all that’s at stake, language unmuddled by federal-government PC-speak. So no, there’s no fed heavy hand here, none whatsoever ...)

Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:08 | #

Fred- see here:

http://enoughisenoughnick.blogspot.com/

http://www.voiceofchange.org.uk/

All very turgid: just like the wranglings of leftist groupuscules, of which the BNP is after all only a mutant lifeform (besides being a creature of the British security services, who must be havng fun jerking the strings FRG-style).

The UK media, which used to wet itself with excitement every time the BNP won a seat on a parish council, are completely ignoring this spat. Probably been briefed that some other dummy “extreme right wing” party will emerge soon, after the National Front, BNP, Veritas, UKIP etc etc.

Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:46 | #

A major campaign to put the Jewish community in the front line in the fight against racism has been launched by the Board of Deputies under the slogan: “Racism. It’s Not Kosher.”

The aim is to prevent the far-right British National Party from winning a seat in the Greater London Assembly elections next year by encouraging people to go to the polls.

The Board said it was “essential to highlight the fact that parties such as the BNP still harbour an anti-Jewish agenda, despite their protestations to the contrary”. An early success for the initiative was claimed last Thursday in a council by-election in Harrow, North-West London, which has a large number of Jewish voters.

Board officials contacted synagogues in the area and rabbis highlighted the by-election in their sermons.

The result was a resounding defeat for the BNP candidate, Howard Studley, with just 56 votes.

The poll was won by the Tories, whose candidate Husain Akhtar, scored 1,208 votes, followed by Labour’s Richard Harrod (389), Liberal Democrat Anne Diamond (296) and Marcello Borgese, Independent (182).

http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=57052&ATypeId=1

Posted by Artiste on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31 | #

I believe it was exiled academic Drew Fraser who said that the legislative reforms that gave political might to the great liberal movements of the 60s and 70s were done by mainstream parties - not “The Feminist Party” or “The Anti-Racist” party. Ultimately, if a political solution is to be reached it will be through a mainstream party. Politicians, given their well-salaried role in modern society combined with universal demo(idio)cracy, are inherently opportunistic and will do whatever they can to stay in power.

They are not leaders, they are leaches; a necessary part of the machine that is a liberal democratic state. If our cause - THE cause - became vocally popular then the two main parties, left and right, would be lining up to please voters.

Like all of us here I don’t have an answer. It frustrates me to write this just as it frustrates me to read other readers’ versions of what they think the problem is while giving no solution. If one of us had the answer we’d be well under way pursuing it to its happy conclusion. But here’s mine. Silly and humble and worthless though it may seem.

As Winston says in 1984, “If there is hope, it lies with the proles”. The message will come from the arts - specifically music and film. But even popular music.. Essentially if we can get the masses thinking about this stuff enough for them to want to openly discuss it with one another then the politicians will follow. Think: We have songs being blasted into teenagers’ ears like “promiscuous girl” and “my humps” etc. I need not mention the countless hollywood movies filling up our minds with thought sewerage. We know this has been a huge impact on the way people organise their thoughts.

Yeah I know, we don’t have control of the MSM. But given the digital revolution (which has allowed sites like this to prosper), the traditional centralised means of distribution of music and film have been shaken up. Bands can become popular with the right amount of buzz from a myspace account.. With some money maybe?

Tired, but I guess I’m saying what I always say when I post here under one moniker or another - please let’s do less analysing and talking about what kind of world we want or used to have and start devoting our minds to a solution. An essential part of which is, in my opinion, bringing these issues up in the collective mind of the masses. And the best way to do this is through the arts: there’s no point trying to get an unpopular politican or party elected, eg Ron Paul, as much respect as I have for him. A viewpoint should be made popular and the politicians do the rest themselves.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:00 | #

The arrogance of Milliband and Benn-the-younger in this video is enough to send a person with steady nerves into a rage. Though Benn senior (Anthony Wedgewood) is on the right side of this particular issue I can’t regard him in this video without the bitterest taste rising into my mouth over his having made a lifelong career as one of the U.K.‘s most extreme left-wing radical political opportunists. Why he’s suddenly abandoning the extreme radical left over this particular instance of nation-betrayal is a mystery. Notice by the way the strongly Semitic looks of Milliband in the video’s close-ups: my theory is that those individual Jews more sympathetic to Euro survival actually are genetically closer to Euros while those less sympathetic are racially less Euro, more Semitic (neither kind of Jew need know his genetics, according to my idea: it’s instinctive), which puts Milliband on the wrong side of the genetics divide. Question: How did this especially Semitic-looking Jewish Milliband specimen end up in the post he occupies when there are fifteen-gazillion-to-the-ninetieth-power Euros better qualified who’d be better stewards for Britain, not to mention less obnoxious? Answer: He who pays the piper (guess who that would be?) calls the tune (more like the funeral dirge. Britain’s, unfortunately ...).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:11 | #

The following being obliquely à propos of this thread’s subject matter, I’ll throw it in: this exchange on The Jewish Question posted as a comment in Prozium’s blog is quite good. I agree with it 95%. Good job.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:22 | #

I just have to say what I hope is “the obvious”: the excerpt from Milliband’s speech which is included in the log entry is so unmistakably Jewish it could have been lifted straight out of the Talmud. I hope everybody caught that, on reading the entry. It left me coming away from the entry with a sick feeling, I must say. These Jews are running the West into the ground (and, what they don’t realize, Israel along with it). They are an out-of-control epoch-making civilizational disaster. They were meant to occupy their niche, not be in control of things. They don’t know how to be in control of things. Euros were meant to be in control of things. When the Jews get control everything degenerates into sickness, destruction, civilizational death, everything.

Posted by skeptical on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:26 | #

Guessedworker,

As per our previous exchange over at Age-Of-Treason, I’ve been intermittently thinking about your call for a new revolutionary [pro-White] philosophy as well as the (to your mind) “insufficiency” of the old conservatism. And, I’ve been wondering how you would reconcile your thinking with the current status of modern libertarianism.

At least in the States, a significant amount of intellectual effort has been spent on crafting and honing modern “libertarian” ideals in various magazines (such as Reason), books, news forums, and webzines. Serious politically minded individuals, like Ron Paul, are largely a product of this particular class of intellectual bourgeoises (to borrow from Derbyshire’s latest piece on Vdare); however, what has been the end result of their extensive theorizing bereft (as it is) of any notion of “blood & soil”? The answer is next to nothing! Their philosophizing, theorizing, and intellectual development has not really amounted to much in effectuating real change in stemming the tide of federal encroachment here in the U.S. (a country with abundant roots in classical liberalism).

To wit, if a revolutionary philosophy is really a decisive component in glavanizing “the people” and effectuating change then why is the “libertarian movement” about as far along as we are? In fact, their utter failure is more complete since they don’t have the entirety of the media establishment continuously at their throats like the pro-White movement does.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:44 | #

Following close on the heels of the Archbishop of Canterbury, more obnoxious drivel and dangerous nonsense from a prominent British nitwit so stupid and disgusting it takes the breath away. These are the kinds of people you get running things when the Jews are paying the piper and calling the tunes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:52 | #

(No, the Jews didn’t want Rowan Williams to say Sharia Law was inevitable but they did originally want a radical left-wing oaf like him to be Archbishop of Canterbury which is why their lapdog Blair appointed him from the short list or oaves they handed him. Of course when an oaf is in authority sooner or later you’re going to have to deal with the major gaffes he makes, so this one’ll be gotten rid of but no worry, the Jews will see to his replacement by someone even worse for Britain.)

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:04 | #

There seemed to be something there about this being a temporary measure. Only twenty years, then all that horrid inequality will evaporate.

Well we know thats crap for a start, these measures will be in place for good. And who knows in 20 years non-whites may compose a majority of the electorate and it wouldnt be fair to have a minority ruling over a majority so…its obvious that such measures would be need to safeguard democracy in that eventuality.

BTW I read the other day that Jon Gaunt - http://www.gaunty.com - in theory a British right wing shock jock is in favour of all-black short lists (for some elections) as a concept.

Glad to know whose side you are on Jon.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:56 | #

“There seemed to be something there about this being a temporary measure.” (—Lurker)

Yeah if “the next eight-hundred-thousand years” is considered “temporary,” I guess you could call it temporary ....

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:39 | #

MilibandWatch at the Guardian:-

Miliband: UK has moral duty to intervene
Mistakes in Iraq ‘must not derail efforts to spread democracy’

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, will today set out the clearest exposition yet of Labour’s recast foreign policy when he will argue that mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan must not cloud the moral imperative to intervene - sometimes militarily - to help spread democracy throughout the world.

He will warn that the rise of China means that the world can no longer take “the forward march of democracy for granted”, and that Britain must unambiguously be on the side of what he describes as “civilian surges” for democracy.

In a speech in Oxford today entitled The Democratic Imperative, Miliband will say that he believes the debate about the Iraq war “has clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world. I understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep concerns at the mistakes made.” But he will add: “My plea is not to let divisions over those conflicts obscure our national interest, never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy.” Miliband, who is due to travel to China in a fortnight, will also argue that people inside China and outside are rightly concerned about the next stages in its political development.

Among a string of practical proposals to support democracy, the foreign secretary will suggest:

· encouraging economic openness as a means of tackling corruption and increasing transparency, including in China;

· a new round of provincial elections in Iraq, to help to bind in former insurgents who want proof of their local influence, and the chance to join the Iraqi security force;

· organisations like the UN or Nato should consider offering “security guarantees” to new but fragile governments, conditional on them abiding by democratic rules;

· support for “civilian surges” for democracy led by “literate, better-educated people able to access information and communicate with others”.

The foreign secretary will argue that fostering democracy in the Middle East “is the best long-term defence against global terrorism and conflict”.

He will also warn that the spread of democracy is far from guaranteed, and that since the millennium, “there has been a pause in democratic advance ... countries with new democratic systems are struggling to establish roots.

“After the end of the cold war it was tempting to believe in the ‘end of history’ - the inevitable process of liberal democracy and capitalist economics. Now with the economic success of China, we can no longer take the forward march of democracy for granted.”

Miliband’s broad-ranging speech reflects his deep concern that a combination of factors, including widespread distaste for the American neo-conservative movement, disillusionment at the practical failures in Iraq, and a feeling that some underdeveloped countries, such as Kenya, are simply too tribal for democracy, is storing up a powerful isolationist mood in Britain.

The foreign secretary, who has just returned from Afghanistan and Bangladesh, believes there is an urgent need to restate the case for the universal value of democracy.

He will argue that interventions in other countries must be more subtle, better planned, and if possible undertaken with the agreement of multilateral institutions. But “we must resist the argument of the left and the right to retreat into a world of realpolitik”.

Miliband believes that in the 1990s “something strange happened.

“The neo-conservative movement seemed more certain about spreading democracy around the world. The left seemed conflicted between the desirability of the goal and its qualms about the use of military means.

“In fact, the goal of spreading democracy should be a great progressive project; the means need to combine both soft and hard power. We should not let the debate about the how of foreign policy obscure the clarity about the what.”

Posted by Lurker (not Mk II) on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19 | #

“The neo-conservative movement seemed more certain about spreading democracy around the world. The left seemed conflicted between the desirability of the goal and its qualms about the use of military means.”

Hmm, since the neocons openly desire world domination and simultaneously democracy for all countries, then logically in their mind:

democracy = jew-controlled government

Democracy is alien-controlled government where international financiers and media moguls walk straight into the presidential office and dictate terms.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:46 | #

What I’ve heard through the grapevine, Lurker, is apparently the Jews, scarcely able to contain their pride at having achieved total ownership of the British government and naturally wanting to publicize that fact — hey if you’ve got it flaunt it, right? — had planned on hiring a neon-sign company to make a huge garishly-lit brightly-flashing multicolored neon sign with letters six feet high, to be erected in the middle of Picadilly Circus, proclaiming “Jewish-Pro-Likudnik-Neocon money is Totally Controlling the British Labour Party.” Then some cost-conscious chap proposed it would be a lot cheaper and just as effective to simply trot Millibank out and have him give that speech. At least that’s what I’ve heard, dunno if it’s true ... Makes sense though ... (cost-cutting, I mean ....).

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments