Two views of the “modern” British Labour Party in all its current fear and confusion, the first from an email sent to me by Graham Lister:

Labour is killing itself - its root in working class solidarity is now just a tiny echo in its ideology/brand. This is the problem with Labourism in the UK in general. The original trade union movement and its nascent party was hijacked by socially left-leaning ‘progressive’ liberals which turned into a flood following the historic death of the old Liberals. Think the whole Fabian tradition. Liberal reformers that wish to ‘reform’ society for ‘the better’’ by the top-down efforts of ‘experts’ on behalf (and in the best interests naturally) of we plebs that sell our labour to make ends meet.

Of course, the genuine working class involvement kept the liberals semi ‘honest’ but the two sociological groups always had an uneasy relationship. The socially conservative but economically radical workers (think Red Clydeside, Durham miners etc) and the economically insipid but socially radical liberals/Fabians was always the mix of Labour.  But now that organic link to the working class is dead (and has been for some time), thus Labour has hollowed itself out to - at best - the Fabian liberals ‘managing’ technocratic reform for the ‘betterment’ of the ignorant masses. Thus, Labour membership is little more than social liberals, worried public sector workers/professionals, upper class careerists/professional politicos (Balls, Miliband et al - mostly privately educated, PPE Oxford graduates and ‘special advisors’) and ethnics on the make.  Interestingly the vast majority of Labour activists are based in London and the SE and from a middle class/upper middle-class background. Look at someone like Bob Crow and the tube workers - they walked away from Labour a number of years ago as they correctly noted it was a waste of their time and effort.

Labour doesn’t believe in very much at the top level other than staying on the gravy train - see here - and what it does believe is little more than the naive proposition that racism is the worse evil in human history and one ‘solves’ it by mixing all people into a grand ‘melting pot’. 1960’s crap. Plus identity politics for ‘worthy victims’ of liberal sympathies - ethnic minorities, gays and other sexual deviants (just google the topic of Harriet Harman’s pedo sympathies let alone Margaret Hodge’s outrageous conduct in charge of Islington council - all tip of the iceberg stuff as Rotherham suggests). Nothing much to do with any serious form of class politics. i.e. basically decent wages for workers.

Clearly for the cause of Scottish nationalism, Labour in Scotland must be politically destroyed - and it’s happening. They don’t like to give the figures for membership of the Labour party in Scotland but, at best, it’s around the 7,000-8,000 mark. The SNP is now approaching 80,000 members. Clearly the Union is a zombie - it’s dead or in its death throws yet still lives on for now.  Obviously, Labour are now becoming toxic in places like Glasgow and Dundee.  Equally obviously, a Scottish MP from a Scottish Westminster seat will increasingly be seen as a liability/unacceptable to English voters in any of the big Westminster cabinet positions (or as a UK wide leader of the Westminster ‘main’ parties). If one was a young and cynical but ambitious, would-be Scottish politician - with the sense to play the ‘long game’ - well such a person could only join the SNP.  The idea of a Labour party dominated and led by Scots (Smith, Blair - technically Scottish by birth and his father’s blood - Brown, Darling et al) and ruling the UK, will be a thing of the past. I cannot see English public opinion tolerating such a state of affairs again.

In England the situation is more complex - ALL three of the smug Westminster parties need, in effect, to be destroyed by an anti-establishment insurgency. Obviously, the liberal elites have all the serious money behind them, the propaganda of the mass media, etc.  But what can be taken away from them is their democratic legitimacy. Now in their hearts, no one at Westminster gives a damn about democracy or the plebs.  But by the rules of the game and ‘in public’ that (and what we think) matters enormously.  UKIP is indeed a crude mechanism but let’s hope for a pincer movement from both UKIP and the SNP in an anti-Westminster uprising.

It’s taken me a long time but I now hate the Labour party even more than I hate the Tory party.  And that’s a lot of hate.

The second offering is mine, and takes the form of a rather sympathetic (well, sort of sympathetic) piece of advice to party members and readers of LabourList, the party’s “biggest independent grassroots e-network”.  So called.  It was posted in the aftermath of the pretty disastrous by-election in Heywood & Middleton, which Labour held on a recount from a fearfully healthy and strong-looking UKIP.

READ MORE...

Judging by his vigilant stream of Ebola updates, it is clear that James considers the threat of Ebola to be under-reported in terms of its significance.

Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored by authorities:

       

The handling of the Ebola threat by institutional bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control, supposedly responsible for safeguarding public health, provide a glaring example of how we cannot rely on them to serve our needs, not even as a by-product of the most ostensibly objective concerns of human ecology.

Furthermore, as the remiss demonstrates that these bureaucracies cannot be entrusted to look-after the interests of our relative human ecologies it should create awareness that now is the time to step-up participation in border re-establishment.

As James explains, the mishandling of the threat of pandemic disease, as in the case of Ebola, has been made evident not only through border crossing, but in a pattern of decades, extending to misreadings of the H.I.V. epidemic by these same responsible institutional bodies - such as the CDC, with its authoritative media organ, “Nature” magazine, taken to be definitive of science journalism and featuring assessments by experts such as Princeton’s R.M. Anderson - experts and their fact-checkers who are all too capable of committing fundamental errors in epidemic prediction.

Specifically, Anderson’s initial indication for Nature magazine suggested that an increased number of sex partners was not a particularly significant factor in H.I.V. transmission. This took for granted its operating on a relatively homogenous population, with steadier patterns and where outlier behavior is more compartmentalized into niches. Promiscuous heterosexuals in this sort of population were not particularly at risk as their partnering was in linear alignment and separate from the infected homosexual population. However, with the increasing introduction of diverse populations, not only are more promiscuous sorts added to the ranks of the population, but also those more capable of transmitting the disease, those still more recklessly transgressing niches and even those with malicious intent to deliberately transmit the disease.

“Strength in diversity indeed - for pandemic disease!”

The take-away is that European peoples must take initiative in border control to protect the interests of our human ecologies - for our very survival. Institutional bodies entrusted to be competent and concerned cannot be relied upon for even the basics of public health management - they are not even taking into account such basic factors as the mass introduction of alien biology and behavioral patterns on stable human ecologies; the direct introduction of virulence from primeval breeding grounds and bio-power, e.g., of Sub-Saharan Africa - which your European biology may not withstand. In fact, these bureaucrats in their faux-objectivism, whether the result of pandering or being pandered-to, malicious intent, indifference or incompetence at best, are subjecting European populations to experiments that your European biology should not have to hold up-to, as conducted upon you and the ancient human ecology of our European peoples unwillingly, unbeknownst, without consent.

More, for their very nature as fixed places, James likens nation states to immobilized patients in a clinic, and therefore draws the possibility of their susceptibility to pandemic, such as Spanish flue, which spread rapidly through immobilized patient concentrations in Red Cross hospitals after World War I. Immobile as the nations states are then, it is imperative to secure their borders against mobilized virulence.

Ebola having reached The U.S. highlights this fact. Thriving at length, transmissible even from a corpse, passively, potentially mutating airborne transmissability, Ebola can be far more destructive than the H.I.V. epidemic which the CDC blundered about..

James details the analogy in the misreading of H.I.V. and Ebola epidemiology:

READ MORE...

A blog comment by Enza Ferreri prompts some thoughts on Vico. Of course I do not place comfort or credence in all of Vico’s ideas - unlike Johnson, I particularly do not find this comforting: “The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again.” Even so, I do respect Vico as the first prominent anti-Cartesian philosopher; who saw that an anti-modernist, turning and reconstructing process was implied by non-Cartesianism. However, I take a more hopeful view that we are not so determined to repeat unpleasantries - rather, we are free to act, at least having some alternative range of functional autonomy and agency to repeat healthy practices and forms of the past, while moving on and advancing to new ways where we are the better for it.

In any event, as he was the first major challenge to Cartesianism, and frequently cited as a forefather of social constructionism proper, I have long treated Vico as pivotal to sound philosophical underpinning of White/European nationalism - this article to note:

Yes, The White Race Is A Social Construct (Contrary to Jewish and Right Wing Denial).

WN may be finally catching-on to these correctives of typical right-wing errors.

Greg Johnson gave a speech on Vico at the recent London Forum. In anticipation, I have already invited him to speak with G.W. or James about this in an M.R. podcast, should any party be willing. As for Enza, she can come visit my town anytime she likes..

Excerpt of Enza Ferreri’s comment regarding Greg Johnson’s speech on Vico

Vico is a 17th-18th century philosopher from Naples. Most Italians know of him and his theory of the “corsi e ricorsi storici”, or the cyclical nature of history. But he’s little known in the Anglo-Saxon world, despite having had some influence, especially on James Joyce’s books. Vico’s Scienza nuova (“New Science”) is the basis for Finnegans Wake.

The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again is very far from the contemporary view of history as progress. Vico, according to Johnson, was exceptional, in that he was the first anti-Enlightenment thinker and the only one of his time, despite being himself an Enlightenment thinker in some ways.

Vico postulated a fundamental law of historical development, that follows the same pattern by evolving through three phases: the age of gods, “during which gentile [meaning “pagan”] men believed that they were living under divine rule”; the age of heroes, when aristocratic republics were established; and the age of men, or what we may call “democracy”, “when all were recognised as equal in human nature”. Here Vico is a son of his “Enlightened” times, when he talks of the necessity to respect “natural reason” and of “the human rights dictated by human reason when fully explored”.

At that point man’s increased powers of reasoning result in a state of anarchy, when everybody considers himself his own ruler and only looks after his own pleasure and short-term interest. Sounds familiar? It must do, because it’s a fairly accurate description of what we are going through now, a description which will become even more faithful as decades, nay years, nay months go by.

Then men get tired of that anarchy and “turn again to the primitive simplicity of the early world of peoples”, and to religion. Thus the cycle starts again.

The beauty of it all, said Johnson, is that Vico’s view of history enables us to stop trying to mend the present state of affairs, which is beyond repair, and instead look forward to - even accelerate - its end, which will usher a new era.

Or I would put it as “the darkest hour is just before the dawn”.

Johnson concluded his speech by saying that, whereas Giorgio Almirante, the leader of the Right-wing Italian party Movemento Sociale Italiano, said, “Julius Evola is our Marcuse, only better”, we can say that Vico is our Karl Marx, only better.

Greg Johnson on Vico:

http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/Johnson%20on%20Vico.mp3

Challenge or corrective process to Enlightenment puritanism, depending on perspective

[Note: Søren chided me for not proofreading this sufficiently; and he was right. There was a typo in the very title and an uncouth repetition of the word “suggests” in the same sentence in the second paragraph. It’s fixed now]

There is a provocation from the other direction as well. You see, this hermeneuticist naturally wants different nations to have different, sovereign ways, and for there to be a variety of ways among the nations, including individuals who may believe themselves to be descended from god, as they see fit. So, the question, “do you accept the prerogative to exclude you?” is only mildly insulting in that it proposes the necessity to enforce something that I am advocating with all my might, in line with, and by my very natural preferences.

And it is not to be capricious or to look for serpentine ways for an inroad into a foreign culture, but rather to point-out a loophole in this Enlightenment model of “sortocracy” - the a-historical linearity of modernity -  which indicates that consideration be given to the possibility that it might indeed, be enhanced by some consideration of the hermeneutic turn. That loophole of a-historicity/historicity and the necessity of narrative coherence may be used in a positive or negative way.

Hermeneutics was, after all, conceived for friendly purposes, to protect our people from the arbitrary ravages of a-historical scientism. And typically, abused by Jewish interests.

READ MORE...

                                   
On the radio page: Stan Hess, formerly of Voice of Reason Radio, discusses his colourful life with DanielS and GW, shares with Daniel an outsider’s memories of the Berkeley - San Francisco scene of the 1970s, and talks about his activism today:

http://majorityrights.com/radio/index

READ MORE...

Stan Hess, formerly of Voice of Reason Radio, DanielS and GW discuss the hippies and activism today, with some dropping out (but not that dropping out). 43.6 megabytes, 47 min 45 sec.

..and movements. Proscriptions of European organization and defense, promulgated under a guise of moral acceptability, that have European peoples arguing against their own interests and organization thereof.

                                                       
                                                  promulgating the perversion of terms…

Conservatism

Racist/Racism

Leftism

Equality

Diversity

Multiculturalism

Post Modernity

Social Constructionism

Hermeneutics

Marginals

Tolerance

Civil Rights

Hippies/Feminists

Sexual conservatism as pathological

Christianity

 

READ MORE...

A chat with Jimmy Marr following his interview by Circus Maximus reveals..

daniel sienkiewicz: nice show.

Jimmy Marr: Thanks. I knew you were listening, so I didn’t worship Hitler even once.

daniel sienkiewicz: wise guy

daniel sienkiewicz: the Irish guy was cool too

Jimmy Marr: Yeah. We kept talking for nearly an hour after the show was officially over. There were actually two Irish guys on there. Was that part audible to you?

daniel sienkiewicz: yes…and I was very pleased with what you did with Nietzsche..

... that you were taking-on scientism

daniel sienkiewicz: that it will be left to us to create what is important to value

Jimmy Marr: Oh great. I’m glad someone was out there to appreciate that. I felt like maybe I was getting too abstract.

daniel sienkiewicz: But you know Jimmy that is, in essence, social constructionism

daniel sienkiewicz: and that is not wrong.

daniel sienkiewicz: it is right.

Jimmy Marr: Yes.

daniel sienkiewicz: v good.

daniel sienkiewicz: lots of subtle ideas..I was impressed..I look forward to listening to the show a second time.

....it also clarified some of the things with “the bugs people”..fascinating..

you acquited yourself quite well, I thought.

Jimmy Marr: Great. Thank you. It was tough.

daniel sienkiewicz: you’re welcome..these things are tough…when people whose best interests you have at heart are tangled-up with antagonistic forces.

READ MORE...