|
|
|
The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 4 This was to have been the final part of my investigation into The Rotherham Syndrome. But I have received a further email from my correspondent Steve S, whose original mail precipitated this series, in which he writes:
I think that’s a pretty valid observation on the mysterious, ubiquitous phenomenon of Establishment treachery. So in this fourth but no longer final part of my essay, I will investigate how the old Establishment class - the elites of the old courtiers, the new industries, and Empire – lost its political foothold. It will now be the fifth - and final - part in which I will focus, finally, on today’s controlling class of thousands of men and women who attach no human value, indeed, scarcely any meaning at all to children of our people simply because they are white victims of Asian Moslem sexual criminals. It is worth noting in passing that although the context here is British, the latter’s monopoly of control, the common purpose, the hermetic networking, the focus on “modernising” everything via a near-religious progressive obsession, the unnatural preoccupation with racism, the total absence of empathy for kind, and the easy resort to race-treachery are common to political and liberal Establishments and the official mind throughout the West. Rotherham is only an extreme example of how absolute their thinking can be and just how far they are prepared to go to defend their racial proposition. I hope non-British readers will indulge me, therefore, in the following (brief) history of British elitism. Today’s Establishment is an historically unique and most recent development. It finally flowered managerially and ideologically with the election of New Labour to office in 1997. But let us not forget that for the best part of three centuries the Establishment in Britain was a very different quantity. Certainly, from Waterloo to 1914, its elites were unassailed anywhere in terms of power, wealth, sheer confidence and security. They can be profitably presented in a tri-partite form, the oldest element of which was the landed aristocracy, whose power was expressed and maintained largely through the House of Lords but also through the Whig Party. Then there were the commercial and financial elites of London, including the Jewish banking dynasties. Their ties to the Tory and Whig/Liberal parties in the Commons and in government (principally the former) provided for the pursuit of their interests. To a degree, these two groups represented wholly different and conflicting interests: those of the land and tradition, continuity, paternalism and a somewhat self-serving connectedness to the safely uneducated, rustic labourer; and those of the town and modernity, of expansiveness, of the merchant class, of profit, therefore, and of the revolution of the machine. This was the real division in the politics of the age and, to no small extent, it mirrored the divisions of the American Civil War. The third element was the new elites of the northern and midland industrial regions – often self-made men who, though as wealthy as the others, possessed no collective instrument of power. Many, though, exercised individual patronage of the Whigs, which might only have been the usual story of new money craving old. There was much overlap between the first two elements, and perhaps they should be understood not as opposing interests but rather as a conclave of aristocratic and upper-middle class men educated at the best public (ie, private) schools and the top universities, who went on to people the Tory and Whig parties they themselves had fashioned, who created the Civil Service, the City of London and the military and industrial might of Britain, and who governed the largest empire of dominions, colonies, protectorates, and mandates the world had ever seen, and thereby owned the international trade of 450 million people. They were not just pre-eminent in Britain. They were the global elite. And like all elites they were not Platonic philosopher kings but parasites. Ultimately, they were loyal only to their own dictates as individuals and as a class. To understand their vertiginous descent and the condition of their successors in Britain today we must first examine the existential crisis of this elite, which began to emerge in concrete terms, in my view, sometime after the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940 and before the final victory in North Africa at Tunis on 12th May 1943. The signs were there much earlier, of course. The Great War, the disintegration of the Liberal Party and the political rise of the working man, and the Great Depression had been hammer blows. But they might have been survivable with some Disraelian political nuance and a sufficient period of peace and stability. Instead, it was all too plain from the German re-militarisation of the Rhineland on 7th March 1936 that another war with Germany, and another hammer blow, was coming. The long process of rearmament began that same year, hand-in-hand with a diplomatic effort to find a peaceful way forward or, at least, to buy time. In the course of that, the British and French Governments humiliated themselves at Munich on 30th September 1938, ceding to Hitler the newly-named Sudetanlands. Then, less than six months later, they sat on their hands, whistling innocently, as he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. The focus switched to Poland. All classes of British society now knew with sickening clarity what lay ahead. HG Wells’s famous aphorism from 1914 – “the war to end all wars” – quickly developed into a term of disparagement, and a blackly ironic commentary upon the sacrifice in the trenches. By 27th April 1939, when Military Service was re-introduced, initially for single men of 20 to 22 years old, there must already have been a terrible weight of failure and foreboding across the political class. It will only have been compounded by the knowledge that in the preceding decade most of the country had endured an economic depression that was little touched by the upturn in the south after 1932. There was a genuine sense of social ferment given political voice by the Labour Party (the great part of which had stayed out of the national governments of the thirties) and the Trades Union Council. Chamberlain’s National Government bowed to it by curtailing excess working hours under the Factory Act and by much slum clearance. But it all only confirmed the justice of the working man’s cause - the economic and social system had failed him comprehensively. He had little cause to defend it. And yet, that was implicit in what the politicians had to ask him to do when war was declared on 3rd September 1939. The comprehensive defeat of the BEF in France was written over in the public mind by the Miracle of Dunkirk from 27th May and 4th June 1940, and by victory in the air in September of that year. These defensive triumphs were the last hurrahs for the old values. The leading lights of the Labour Party were now inside Churchill’s National Government, not only pushing at departmental level in every way possible to defeat Germany but taking political advantage of their new positions. The moment, after all, was ripe. This was to be the people’s war. It did not only claim the lives of fighting men on the front-line. Some thirty thousand civilian lives were lost in the The Blitz – the night-bombing of British cities which the Luftwaffe inaugurated on 7th September, 1941 – before the Air Ministry finally ordered its own night offensive (ie, area bombing) on, ironically, Valentine’s Day 1942. The young men who climbed aboard the Wimpeys, Stirlings, Halibags, and Lancs were not at all the educated, middle-class, latter-day knights of 1940 who had hurled their Spits and Hurricanes into battle over southern England. They were the sons of Everyman, and they took terrible casualties. Through the worst of it over Berlin and the Ruhr in 1943 their odds of surviving a tour were less than 50/50. And the costs of war, of course, were borne in treasure as well as life. The people were suffering a huge material privation for the war-cause – far more than Hitler ever felt able to demand from his people. Britain expended more of her national wealth during those six years than any other combatant (and after the war she would receive the least favourable treatment from a US president determined to break British imperial power). The first concrete sign of a new and, for the Establishment, ominous political consensus came early with the announcement by Arthur Greenwood, the Labour MP and Minister without Portfolio, on 10th June 1941 of an inter-departmental committee which would carry out a survey of Britain’s social insurance and allied services. The result was the momentous Beveridge Report, published on 2nd December 1942. It identified not just poverty but five “Giant Evils” in British society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, disease. None of these could be tolerated in the modern age. All of them indicted the years of Establishment disinterest and inaction. Their eradication could be delivered only through a far-reaching and radical process of welfare reform: care “from the cradle to the grave”. Among the people this idea proved to be hugely and immediately welcome. The political impetus was already irresistible. It signalled the coming of the end of the old social and economic dispensation. About this the report’s author William Beveridge, an economist, had been perfectly explicit:
The revolution commenced quietly with the reform of the most democratising force in society: education. In June 1943 the Conservative Minister Rab Butler, the father of “new conservatism”, published his white paper titled “Educational Reconstruction”. It began with a quotation from Disraeli:
Five months later a bill was introduced to the House. At its second reading on 19th January 1944, Butler expressed in simple and unassuming language the spirit of the new consensus:
These mild, emollient words masked a stark truth: the consensus had put an end not just to the old social and economic structure or even to the presumption for the elites’ “rightful” place in government. The very idea of class and deference was being questioned no less critically, if less dramatically, than in pre-revolutionary Russia. All down the years from the mid-18th century to the collapse of the Liberal Party, reform had been a debate within the elite’s ranks. Literally by entitlement, access to and possession of social and economic power remained securely in their keeping. Class distinctions were not only marked by the contours of wealth and manners but, incontestably, by breeding, education and Weltanschauung … by palpable human quality, so seeming. But this second German war within a generation, and the popular will to change which its sufferings engendered among the British people, had hollowed out the elites as a political entity with something to say about the future. All that remained to them now was to seek to ameliorate the worst of socialism while mimicking the Labour Party so as to appear friendly towards ordinary working folk and, more importantly, voters. On 5th July 1945, two months after VE Day and two months before VJ Day, the ordinary working voters delivered Winston Churchill’s Conservatives a sharp slap in the face with the election of Clement Atlee’s Labour Party to office. It was quite unexpected by the Establishment itself, which assumed that the electorate would reward Churchill for guiding the nation to victory. It was also an emphatic electoral message. Labour bagged 47.7% of the vote and a majority of 145 seats – the first working majority the party had won. The way was open to profound and, for the elites, profoundly disquieting social change, taking forwards Beveridge’s agenda in every area. It was an historic moment. The great massifying ideas of the modern age - liberalism, socialism, democracy, and modernism itself – had worked themselves out in the crucible of war, and revealed the old Establishment to be impermanent after all; less a bulwark of past values and more an agent of change itself than it could ever have foreseen or would want to admit. Labour had campaigned for its victory under the slogan “Let us face the future”. The future for the elites darkened immeasurably in 1947 with the loss of India, which was the keystone of the whole colonial structure. For example, control of East Africa had been predicated on protecting the sea route to India following the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. That no longer mattered. But walk away from East Africa and how do you justify staying on in the south? A suitably Platonic-sounding justification for continued colonisation was found in re-defining it as a facilitator of independence. Native societies would be developed, indigenous elites educated and enlightened so that self-rule, civil order, and a place among the family of happy and productive sovereign nations of the world would become possible. It was utterly self-serving, of course. It was designed to stave off untimely and disorderly exits in the face of native resistance, and to protect commercial interests from local “big men” who were not educated in the British way of doing things. But it did not hide the truth that decolonialism was taking away the last of the elites’ political raisons d’etre. Over a period of less that two decades they had been transformed into a political anachronism by the rising consciousness of the people, expressed as the socialism of the left at home and as nationalism abroad. The most notable and fateful example of the latter was the Pan-Arab nationalism of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. The Suez Crisis of 1956 marked the end of the role of both Britain and France as international powers. Within three months of completing the ignominious withdrawal from Egypt, Charles de Gaulle was signing the Treaty of Rome to establish the European Economic Community. The French political class had new vistas of self-realisation stretching before it. But British politicians were on the outside, and had only a dying Empire and the disparate and purposeless Commonwealth which was taking its place. The emphasis was heavily on the dying. On 3rd February 1960, the Conservative Prime Minster Harold Macmillan made his famous speech in Cape Town, declaring:
Another political fact was that Britan could not find a new future in the EEC without the consent of all six existing members, and one of them - de Gaulle – was not going to have it. In January 1963 he blocked the British application to join (which he would do again four years later). Desolated, Macmillan wrote in his diary “all our policies at home and abroad are in ruins”. The following year Macmillan was gone in the wake of the Profumo Affair, which let slip the mask of the governing class as dull and worthy servants of the public good and guardians of social propriety, and suggested a deep, abusive vice at the heart of power. Mortified, Conservative MPs stepped backwards and selected as leader and Prime Minister a run-of-the-mansion, little-known aristocrat from the Scottish lowlands who had first entered parliament in 1931 and was now an hereditary peer. His name was Alec Douglas-Home (pronounced “Hume”), The Lord Home of The Hirsel, no less. He looked like a cadaver and betrayed a distinct rigour mortis in his public demeanour. He lasted two days short of a year. The Labour Party under Harold Wilson won a narrow victory in the 1964 election. The sixties were truly here, unbuttoned and on the razzle. The world of the old elites was finally consigned to the past. But anachronistic or not, parasitic or not, they had served some social use during their time, lending structure, order, stability to society and continuity to government in the long, extraordinary and dynamic age of British Empire. Now there was a vacuum. This would be an age of social, intellectual, and political tumult … shallow self-interest and shallower self-expression ... the pill and sudden sexual freedom ... disastrous socially liberal reforms ... coarse social critique and coarser draughtsmanship in the arts ... internationalism and brutalism in architecture ... industrial decay wrought by weak government, weak business leadership and bloody-minded union militancy ... the cult of youth, pop culture, counter-culture, drug culture, the flight into eastern mysticism ... anti-authoritarianism among the young, reaction to the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation, reaction to Vietnam, interminable student sit-ins and demos ... support on campus for terrorism in Northern Ireland and Palestine … support for anything that outraged normal sensibility. Radical egalitarian ideas coursed through the university left, infecting a generation with the sense that everything was rotten and had to be swept away. Moral norms, natural interests and imperatives, loyalties, beliefs were declared “oppressive” or “reactionary” or just “middle-class”. Change was the only value, destruction the only joy, the new the only virtue. The most rampant and pathological elements cried not just “smash capitalism” but “smash the family”, and nobody thought they could possibly mean it or would ever be able to do it. It was, really, a mad scramble for a vacant crown. As with the tumult of pre-revolutionary Russia in 1917, when several possible paths to the future presented themselves, it was the worst possible ideological elements who would triumph. Comments:2
Posted by Friends of Greville Jenner on Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:03 | # April 23, 2015 — Francis Carr Begbie With the clamour of protest over the decision not to prosecute one of Britain’s most senior Jewish politicians over child rape allegations showing no sign of abating, it is worthwhile looking back at the career of the man at the centre. Even without these lurid claims, Greville Janner must rank as one of the most unpopular specimens to ooze his way onto Parliament’s famous green benches. With his pink carnation, clammy handshake and faint after burn of eau-de-cologne, his grinning approach was guaranteed to send a shiver down the spines of the toughest parliamentarians, even in his own Labour Party. Nevertheless, this ingratiating, limp-wristed flatterer has prospered over the decades of his slithering along the corridors of power, not least due to his astute playing of the Jewish ethnic card. His modus operandi was as a backroom operator, a Mr Fixit, a dispenser of favours and passer-on of messages. He was one of those types who would insist on doing someone a favour whether it was wanted or not. In his autobiography he says it was his mother who taught him his most important political lesson — there are few problems that could not be solved with a quiet word in the right ear. Indeed, his own political career was launched by a backroom deal. The lifelong Londoner effectively inherited his Midlands constituency from his father after a dubious, secretive process which infuriated many local Labour Party members. When it came to weaselling himself into the favour of a powerful figures, he displayed a sublime talent. A favoured tactic was to lobby some prominent figure for recognition for another one, especially in the Jewish community. Here, he lobbies the Archbishop of Canterbury for an honour for the Chief Rabbi. There, he buttonholes a passing government minister and suggests an honour for a Jewish businessman. From the beginning of his career a number of distinct themes have dominated his working life. One of the least savoury as it turns out was his close interest in the welfare of young boys who fall into the care system, and to that end he is a longstanding member of the Boy Scouts Association. But the main one is his overriding commitment to the Jewish people. That has been his main priority and he claims it stems from his experience as Britain’s youngest war crime investigator when he was in Germany just after the war. As far as his own constituency of Leicester West was concerned, Janner was clearly more concerned about the welfare of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent than he was about the native White community or, as he puts it in his book, the “battle against racism and anti-Semitism is at the core of my life’s work”. From the moment he was elected in 1970, Janner set about making himself indispensible to the fast-growing Indian community. At the time Britain was in the middle of a refugee crisis when Ugandan dictator Idi Amin threw all the Indian immigrants out of his country. Under Britain’s Commonwealth and Nationality laws, a disastrous overhang from the days of Empire, these Indians were technically British subjects and entitled to come and stay in Britain. The laws had been drawn up as an administrative convenience and it had never been envisaged that Indians would ever leave their own country. But in the sixties they began arriving in Britain in vast numbers. Many converged on Leicester to the alarm of the town’s native White population. Leicester soon became the scene of racial discord and Whites took to the streets to vent their anger at being swamped by a foreign influx they had never been consulted about. Labour Party voters deserted for the assertive new nationalist party, the National Front. For Janner this was an opportunity to show where his loyalties — such as they were — really lay. In his memoir he recalls inviting the Indian community to a meeting and telling them he stood “shoulder to shoulder” with them against the native White opposition. “I am a Jew and half my family were destroyed by racists. I am an expert in discrimination.” Said the privately-educated, Oxford and Harvard graduate who had inherited his father’s parliamentary seat. In a breathtaking passage aimed directly at the White people he was paid to represent, he describes a conversation with a non-Asian school head teacher. He claims that the unnamed head teacher said “They have raised the intelligence in my school.” The sheer contempt for the native White population in that remark is unmistakable. Gleefully, he remembered how he dismissed the objections of the native Whites. He writes “I was determined to battle against some of my indigenous constituents dislike of the unlike…” And enthusiastically he took up the fight against his own White constituents. In 1971 Leicester council placed an advert in Kampala newspapers saying Leicester was full but this did nothing to stem the immigration flow. Janner recalls: “The Leicester Mercury and the local police were my allies in keeping the local National Front and the fascists at bay. In local elections in 1977 the National Front only missed gaining a seat in one of my housing estates by a few votes. ‘Enough’ I said to my Labour colleagues. We recognised that the estate was almost entirely white. They were afraid of people they had never met. The National Front seemed their natural ally. We must expose them. “ he recalled. His access to a Jewish network of contacts and big money proved crucial, and it is here he reveals an episode of extremely dubious legality. “I consulted the (Jewish) Board of Deputies. They had recently produced a wonderful pamphlet with the bold slogan on the front. ‘The National Front’ is a Nazi front’. We put one into every letter box on the estate. The local fascists cringed and never received the same level of votes again.” In fact a police prosecution of far-left activists did take place for circulating literature in contravention of election laws. One of the NF candidates threatened to sue for libel, with the result that Janner took a Jewish high street retail millionaire called Stanley Kalms up to Leicester for a visit. Janner claims in his book that Kalms promised to underwrite any court action. Lord Kalms was later to become a huge contributor to the Conservative Party — a good example of how common Jewish interests override trifling party considerations. With Janner’s support, the Indian surge continued and by 1976 around 40,000 Asians from India and Pakistan had flooded into Leicester and comprised about 20% of the population. Janner freely admits he came to depend on the Indian community for his election majorities. National Front council votes were as high as 30% in local elections. Janner repaid Stanley Kalms’ support by lobbying furiously for him to receive first a knighthood and then a peerage. This finally paid off in 2004 when Kalms entered the House of Lords as Baron Kalms of Edgeware, better known as Lord Kalms. As is so often the case with Jewish politicians, the diversity Janner was so keen to impose on his constituents did not extend to his own circle or even his private office. From his numerous business partners to the researchers he used throughout his parliamentary career, he seems to have hired or worked with only other Jews and used gentiles solely for admin and other menial roles. It has been frequently pointed out in TOO that the Jewish community is forgiving of Jews who run afoul of the law. Disgraced Jewish businessmen frequently double-down on their ethnic identity by suddenly developing a deep interest in the cause of Israel and Jewish charities. Janner has been able to turn this dubious and transparent tactic to great profit. Time and again he has provided his services as a political fig leaf to shady businessmen — for a price, of course. One was the London casino magnate Cyril Stein who had his gaming licence revoked for disreputable practices in the 1970s when magistrates said he was not a “fit and proper” person. Janner was happy to accept a non-executive seat on the board of Stein’s Ladbrokes betting shop chain which he boasted paid more than his parliamentary salary. The second involved another millionaire businessman called Gerald Ronson who was jailed for a year for his part in a share-rigging scandal in 1990. Ronson was released from prison to a sumptuous “Welcome Home” party provided by the ever-forgiving Jewish community. It was presided over by the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and there too, ingratiating as ever, was Greville Janner. Since then Ronson has wormed his way back to respectability of sorts with his chairmanship of the sinister Jewish security organisation, the CST, which is largely an offshoot of the Board of Jewish Deputies. Janner’s energetic lobbying helped ensure that Ronson’s criminal record did not stop him being made a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) in 2012 for his services to Jewish — and other — charities. 3
Posted by More of Janner's friends on Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:05 | #
Other close associates have included the notorious fraudster Robert Maxwell (“Robert Maxwell, aka the Bouncing Czech, demonstrated that you can have a lot of fun in publishing … especially if you are using other people’s money and are not inhibited by ethics or concern about legality”) and Lord Goodman who was a solicitor for former British prime minister Harold Wilson and is said to have prevented many a scandal by threatening newspaper editors. Janner was also close to other Jewish politicians such as Mrs Thatcher’s former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, now deceased, who has been much in the news of late for his alleged involvement with a paedophile ring. But it is Janner’s role in the establishment of Britain’s most moneyspinning holocaust charity that is his crowning glory. The Holocaust Education Trust has been rather silent about the debt they owe to Greville Janner, since it became public knowledge that he was a suspected child rapist. As I noted in an earlier article. This huge organisation has embarked on one of the largest programmes of social engineering ever seen in Britain. Its main achievement has been in making Holocaust propaganda a central part of the core National Curriculum in England. Now every pupil between 11 and 14 must undergo mandatory Holocaust instruction. More than half of Britain’s schools now take part in the HET’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme while it has sent about 15,000 pupils to visit Auschwitz itself. It directs an ambitious “Outreach” indoctrination programme and claims to have recruited 20,000 “Ambassadors” amongst Britain’s young people to spread the word and diligently ensure that Holocaust enthusiasm does not drop to unacceptable levels. The HET has impeccable cross-party political and business Jewish connections, including House of Commons Speaker John Bercow and Lord Browne, formerly the head of British Petroleum. But getting the Prime Minister to attend its annual appeal dinner and announce not only the latest cash boost [from the government to the tune of £2,400,000 per year] but that he would chair the new Holocaust Commission and visit Auschwitz himself next year, was a real coup. Nevertheless they could never have cornered such a huge share of the Holocaust market without his connections, access to money or driving ambition. It is the achievement of which he is the most proud. When not networking, Janner’s main joy in life seemed to be to go on international junkets in which he would never miss an opportunity to oil himself up to local dignitaries. Jewish causes were always what was closest to his heart, whether it was recovering looted wartime art or arranging for the Jews to leave the Eastern Europe for Israel during the Cold war. Janner’s love for his people has always helped him overcome his infirmities. Two years ago and four years after his diagnosis of suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, he was fit enough to travel to Israel to receive his ultimate accolade from his people — the opening of a kindergarten named after him, in a ceremony attended by the British Ambassador, in Israel. The naming of the Lord Greville Janner Education Centre in Galilee was a thank you for both his lifelong interest in the welfare of children and commitment to Israel and the Jewish people. As an indication of how great the public outcry is, eleven leading MPs from seven parties — at least two of them Jewish — have written to The Times asking that the Director of Public Prosecutions reconsider her decision not to prosecute him. They say she risks “damaging public confidence” with her position that the case not go any further. Life has been good to Greville Janner, due in no small part to his ability for friendship and ethnic fealty. These are gifts, however, that finally seem to be deserting him.
6 Comments to “The Friends of Greville Janner” You can follow all the replies to this entry through the comments feed
4
Posted by Debt is the Key on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:55 | #
- Graham 5
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:21 | # The moral degeneracy of the wonderfully liberal UK continues on its evil way. I’m sure liberals will be arguing for paedo’s ‘equality’ and ‘rights’ before the decade is completed. No doubt it will be linked to the sin of all sins ‘racism’ and God forbid ‘discrimination’. Public hanging would be too good for these slimeballs and their enablers. And on Janner if he is so far gone cognitively as to be unfit for trial why was he still very active in the Lords (even being appointed to committees) until very recently? I doubt there is a more morally corrupt nation than the UK within the West right now. 6
Posted by Ruling The Void on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:01 | # Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy by Peter Mair
................... New Left Review
.......................................................... Review from Telegraph Europe is slowly strangling the life out of national democracy Decisions affecting the lives of voters are being taken by bureaucrats and unelected ‘experts’
7
Posted by Tory compromises alienate base on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:05 | # Tories fail traditional conservatism through compromise, lose base support:
8
Posted by a period of unstable coalitions on Sun, 03 May 2015 05:52 | # THE MILIBAND MASQUERADE? - by Colin Liddell, Saturday, 2 May 2015
9
Posted by Muslim mayor of Tower Hamlets on Sun, 03 May 2015 07:32 | # Truth, Honesty and Faith in Allah: The Rise and Fall of Lutfur Rahman - Tobias Langdon, May 2, 2015 [/url]
10
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 06 May 2015 23:12 | # Something for GW. . .hope it is of interest. That the problem of personal identity is not primarily a problem about consciousness—at least in the narrow sense that dominates current debate—is also shown by the fact that consciousness does not constitute personhood; rather, it presupposes and reveals it. The point is well known from the classic objections of Thomas Reid and Joseph Butler to the Lockean theory of personal identity: there is a vicious circularity in trying to analyze personal identity, as Locke does, in terms of memory or of consciousness in general, since these phenomena presuppose identity (i.e., that it is the same person who remembers or is conscious). Yet it is a point that cannot be repeated often enough. A person is not merely aware—he is aware of something, and that something is, fundamentally, himself. There has, of course, been an attempt to get around the problem by invoking non-identity-presupposing relations such as “quasi-memory,” but such notions are of doubtful coherence at best. Any attempt to synthesize personal identity out of a manifold of conscious states will founder on the task of specifying just what the content of those states is supposed to be, and I take this to be a point extendable beyond persons to the identity of any conscious being, such as an animal. More generally, the circularity objection is a special case of the general one against all attempts to give a non-identity-presupposing, and hence noncircular, theory of diachronic identity (identity over time) for any kind of object. It would be specious to deny that either phenomenology or consciousness in general were relevant to the problem of personal identity: any plausible theory must, for example, account for a person’s sense of self as an enduring entity, capacity for higher-order conscious states, and awareness of itself as a being endowed with freedom and responsibility. What I am denying, however, is that the problem of person identity is primarily one about phenomenology or consciousness. Rather, it is about psychology in general, taken in the broad, traditional sense: the problem concerns the specific mental operation of the human being in particular, and of any person at all, whether there be angels, animals that are persons, or other disembodied minds. To broach the problem, we must begin with the concept of form. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:31 | # Graham, of course it is always of interest. The function of consciousness is not to reveal identity. To my mind, Mind has an ascriptive function ... the saying of “I” over the proceedings revealed through consciousness. The question then arises as to the quality of the consciousness and the authenticity of what bears the ascription. Everything I write about on this subject is concerned to answer this question. So where does that leave your critique? 12
Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 02:46 | # um, Hello? Anybody there? Isn’t here like a UK election going on right now, and you;re blathering about this stuff? I’m worried about UKIP. They don’t seem to be doing very well. 13
Posted by Meta-political prescription on Fri, 08 May 2015 04:15 | # Posted by canuck on May 07, 2015, 09:46 PM | # um, Hello? Anybody there? Isn’t here like a UK election going on right now, and you;re blathering about this stuff? I’m worried about UKIP. They don’t seem to be doing very well. Hi Canuck, Thanks for your concern, however the “stuff that we are blathering about” is called “metapolitics” and it is really the essential and crucial concern that we should be about at this point in history, given that electoral politics in western democracies are a deck so rigged by the enemies of our people. Morgoth’s review acknowledges as much - despite his applying “special focus” to the elections in Britain - he takes the fact of this rigged deck as premisary: Election Special: Britain On The Brink
Thus, what do we do? Merely go ahead and play with the rigged-deck? or rather apply analysis, diagnosis and prescription for a new deck of cards - a new meta politic? That is not to say that your concern is invalid, that there is no interest here in what is going on; on the contrary, GW, et.al, are preoccupied with mainstream discussions of the elections and that accounts for their quiet here; and on the contrary, we’ve got to be connected with issues that impact the mainstream and in how we might use current platforms to voice our nativist position - as Paul Weston has. In line with that, we plan to have GW and Paul Weston take-up metapolitical reflection of the elections and diagnosis thereupon, in a few days…
My own, admittedly cursory, opinion of Farage is that he is analagous to Ron Paul. Throwing one meaty bone to the normal public in order to siphon-off their anger and desire for metapolitical transformation to native nationalist interests. In the case of Ron Paul, it was “End the Fed and audit the Fed” - which would be political meat, indeed. But on most everything else, as a libertarian based on Austrian School economics, his politics were liberal to an extreme - open borders, etc. Thus, he provided the perfect metapolitical homeostasis of false opposition to the Powers That Be, a false opposition for the public to bemuse themselves as intellectually justified and unoffensive to liberals in general. I suspect Nigel Farage is much the same - only that getting out of The EU is the meaty bone that he is throwing the normal public. Even that issue is controllable, as are all other issues that he would espouse - quite liberal and controlled by the same old indeed. As it was with Ron Paul, I guess that it is largely Austrian school objectivism that is the metapolitic behind him? 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 06:54 | # It is possible that three “meaty issues” will now land on Cameron’s desk. He has to do something about the Scottish settlement - all three “No” parties promised more powers to the Scottish Parliament at the Indy ref. Which means some sort of English settlement in a weak tea form. Constitutional reform is, therefore, inevitable (I don’t think UKIP made nearly enough of this, incidentally, in their election campaign). The Tories will try to get some party advantage from it, but it will be transitory, no doubt. Even a “Grand Committee” of English MPs in the Commons will give English nationalism a huge shot in the arm. There is also the promise of an EU referendum in 2017, following a negotiation. There isn’t going to be a meaningful negotiation with the other EU members. So Cameron and all the “In” parties will have a difficulty with campaign substance. They will hope the press wins it for them. Possibly they will try to link an “Out” vote with the break-up of the UK, since it would provoke another Indyref which this time the SNP would probably have enough mojo to win. The third issue - and the long-odds bet - is on electoral reform. 4 million voters have made UKIP and the Greens their choice, and received two, maybe 3 MPs. 1 million SNP voters have 56 MPs at Westminster. The Tories and Labour won’t want another vote on proportionality. But the LibDems, trying to re-birth, will certainly want it - they were, of course, the power behind the failed AV referendum in the last parliament. If nothing else, there will be some serious debate over the merits or otherwise of our system. So, some quite fundamental issues come out of this election, even if they don’t include a meaningful UKIP presence in the HoC. In the longer run, bringing these issues to the fore will do more to radicalise opinion than one might think. The battle was lost yesterday, but the war is still on. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 07:19 | # The result in Rotherham: Sarah Champion, Labour: 19,860 (52.5%) 16
Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 07:27 | # I hope you guys do an electoral analysis piece. For example, if Cameron squeaks by with his own very weak Conservative majority, and given that UKIP is getting around 12.5% of the vote and looks to be the UK’s 3rd largest party by actual votes (you’re right about the weird SNP situation, though from my British Columbia perspective, I should think that’s not a bad thing, given that SNP seats come solely at Labour’s expense), do you suppose Cameron will be pushed Right on immigration (he’s committed to the EU referendum but also to opposing withdrawal, so that’s pretty moot)? Even if UKIP gains no seats, can they leverage their 3rd place by votes status to force “call me Dave” to the Right on migration matters? Will they, particularly if Farage steps down? Actually, please inform me: what IS the actual on the ground immigration situation these days, especially regarding Muslims and other non-Europeans? I keep reading that Cameron has tightened immigration, but is that true? Hope to get some responses from on the ground British. I’ve never been to Britain (only one English grandmother, married my Canadian grandfather serving in World War One - rest of family, mostly English and Irish, little French, have been here for much more than a century), but still consider it the Mother Country, and hate what has happened there. We’re under invasion here, too, obviously. I’ve lived long enough to watch the white country I grew up in become completely multiculturalized where not Asianized, especially the large cities. The rural area I grew up in is still pretty white, plus some first nations people on the fringes. But Vancouver, where I made my career for much of my adult life, what a disaster! 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 07:40 | # Analysis is hardly necessary. The result isn’t complicated (after months when every commentator has been flummoxed by the complexities). The SNP surge gave Cameron power, causing patriotic English voters to flood out of Labour and, to a lesser extent, to return from UKIP. We are now in a constitutional phase of national politics, and the outcome of that in a couple of years is the key to everything. 18
Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 07:43 | # Further- If MR does do an electoral analysis could you explain the differences between the Northern Ireland parties (at least the unionist ones)? Also, unless I’m much mistaken, it seems like all the parties in the UK are pretty leftwing. The only right-of-centre parties would seem to be Tories, UKIP and BNP (and maybe the Protestant Ulster parties?). Are there other small parties that are on the Right? What about Plaid Cymru? Are they like the SNP, or more real nationalists? Where are the English nationalists (UKIP?)? You certainly have a lot of socialist/trade unionist type parties! 19
Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 07:58 | # This is appalling. UKIP has almost exactly the number of total votes as SNP + LibDems, yet it has one lousy seat whilst the others have 64 at the moment. I don’t fully understand this. I would have thought UKIP would have substantially cut into the Tory totals. I’m not sure Cameron will get to 326. It’s awfully close. And when the hell will we know if Farage won his? This must be very exciting for you British chaps. Also, what guessedworker says is not quite correct. Even combining Labour + SNP still gives Tories a greater number of seats. “Call me Dave” is actually winning, notwithstanding all the UKIP protest votes. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 09:07 | # There is no really right-wing party - not even UKIP (which is endeavouring to appeal across the spectrum, not merely to the traditional right). The political class, and the liberal and media Establishment generally, is well to the left of the people, in so much as the grand causes of the right ... policies relating to nationhood and sovereignty, immigration and demography, the preservation of traditional marriage, and sovereign debt ... have been very largely put beyond public debate. The main parties, including the Scots and Welsh nationalists, are marxised culturally, debt-addicted, and internationalist. There is no true nationalism anywhere. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 09:37 | # Farage loses Thanet South: 16,026 votes to the Tory’s 18,838. Nearly a 70% turn-out. Very high - the Tories really got their vote out. 22
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 08 May 2015 09:51 | # The political class, and the liberal and media Establishment generally, is far, far more liberal than the people, in so much as the grand causes of policies relating to nationhood and sovereignty, immigration and demography, the preservation of traditional marriage, and sovereign debt have been very largely put beyond public debate. 23
Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 13:13 | # This is amusing. The very last district to report results is something called “St. Ives”, which seems to be the remotest tip of England. Why are they the last in with their winner? Still amazed that UKIP could clearly be UK’s 3rd party by votes, but gets only a single seat. Isn’t that the story of racialists everywhere? We’re never concentrated enough geographically actually to win. Our sentiments are too spread out. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 13:39 | # Daniel, the word “liberal”, as a sign of party and policy position, does not have the meaning in Europe that it does in America. In Britain, for example, it refers to a centuries-long political tradition of reform (there is still a micro-style Liberal Party) and, through the vehicle of the modern Liberal Democrats, of the socially and environmentally progressive centre-left. Obviously, leftism has an equally specific meaning, and one that shouldn’t be made a semiotic hostage to your own analysis as a thinking nationalist. You have to allow common usage in political debate. On the question of the value of the term “white left”, I am agnostic, as I am with Graham’s “communitarianism”. It isn’t the term so much as the possibility for personal ideological presuppositions and preferences to be inveigled upon the ontological target. That target expresses itself via the axes of the politics of its interests, not of the liberalism which does not fit it. In other words, there is a different and potentially emergent language which we should endeavour to remain open enough to hear, if only imperfectly for now. 25
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 08 May 2015 18:42 | # GW, the significant point that I wanted to make is that using liberal instead of left in that sentence translates exactly, whether in The US or in Europe, in terms of what Marxism implies for European group interests - that is, a liberalizing action as opposed to native national unionization. The only difficulty, and it is a difficulty I acknowledge, is (the Jewish convenient) meanings that have been loaded onto “THE left” in official journalese and academia. Customary understanding is a reason to go along with that terminology, but not a perfectly good one. However, your calling yourself agnostic on “the White left” is good enough for now. As with MacDonald, I like you and respect you too much to not cut you some slack and hassle you about it constantly. In fact, he would have an even harder time marking the distinction between red and white left with his having invested so much text with “the left” as a universal antagonist force, as opposed to a union of particular interests, which could as well be unions of native European nationals as I suggest marks the distinction in ordinary language - left, a union of a social group / right - objective facticity beyond group accountability.
26
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 19:59 | # The meat of the issue, perhaps, is that you see the action in question as a unionisation of selves, while I see it as I believe Heidegger saw it - as a unionisation of the self. I see it, and not the fracture and estrangement we ordinarily know, as the natural estate of all beings and the foundation of all connectedness and vivifying choice. That is, of course, absolutely nothing new:
28
Posted by speech as verbal or pervasive on Sat, 09 May 2015 08:28 | # For what its worth (usually some intelligent thoughts), Colin Liddell’s take on the UK elections: http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/05/lessons-from-uk-elections.html
Karma - check.
People shouldn’t be swayed by something so superficial as Jewishness, only girls (women voters) would vote on such a cosmetic basis - check
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/05/not-beyond-freedom-of-speech.html
GW questioned the idea of everything being treated as speech: and thinking about free speech in light of the Andy/Richard tiff, I can see whereas it could be better to redraw that line, with free speech being treated as verbal speech only; and in that case, it could be more liberal, as GW commends. What is significant theoretically here is that all acts being treated as a form of speech probably provides much of the grease for the YKW to slip in their public agendas..
29
Posted by Tanya Cohen's decree of hate speech on Mon, 11 May 2015 06:54 | # It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S. Tanya Cohen - 1 May, 2015 http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/05/hammer-down-on-hate-speech/
30
Posted by Britain's rulers versus the people on Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:20 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by YKW and Objectivists on Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:40 | #
...“it was the worst possible ideological elements who would triumph”:
1. Prescriptions of internationalist liberalism by plutocrats headed by Jewish interests and plutocrats whose objectivism was indifferent to the relative interests of race and species thereof.
2. Cultural Marxism which was/is a unionionization of any peoples who want to rupture union of native White interests, in particular by liberalizing what would otherwise be the boundaries and borders of that union.
Lets not get lost in blaming young White men for what organized Jewry, such as the SDS did in co-opting Viet Nam protest as a political venue, as it is White men they want to blame entirely, particularly those who could not immunize themselves from expendablity and had/have motive to be loyal to a nation which is in turn loyal to their interests. Nor should we allow the YKW to take their nascent and inarticulate protest to be included in native social unionization and associate it with liberalism so pervasive as to do away with native national citizenship and boundaries/borders.
No, the answer is in nationalism proper, in which “class” is the same as the whole bounded nation, unionized by citizenship of historic native peoples; and qualitative “niche” takes the place of class, position determined by qualitative merit, stable but accountable to the systemic human ecology. Indeed this requires “elite”, viz., those in positions sensitive to cybernetic governance (or otherwise runaway) of the system, to be uncorrupted by YKW and without objectivist blindness to indebtedness to historical/social capital of native human ecology.