Saturday, 15 September 2018

Left ill of dead


Benn’s beliefs were poisonous, Crow was a Luddite. The Left would have crippled Britain and the Right should say so

‘A magnificent writer, speaker and campaigner, with a strong record of public service,” said the Prime Minister on the death of Tony Benn, a deluded leftwinger who spent much of his life and endless guile working to turn Labour into some kind of East European socialist party.

But in old age, apparently, a national treasure. “An extraordinary orator, and principled man,” tweets the Tory Chairman, of the notorious old twister; “a man of deep socialist principle,” gushes the Commons Speaker. How long before even Arthur Scargill is obituarised as some kind of saint?

There is more to this nonsense than an old-fashioned reluctance to speak ill of the dead. Socialists, I sense, are credited with principle and public-spiritedness almost by default.

Bob Crow, the Luddite RMT union boss who died the same week as Benn, was promptly soft-soaped with posthumous platitude: apparently he was “a fighter and a man of character” whose loss was “tragic”, according to Boris Johnson. Did Enoch Powell get this treatment from old enemies? Why do we who are not of the Left collude in rebranding hard-left bruisers and Marxist nutters as patriotic poppets? These rascals seldom return the compliment. Here’s how Boris Johnson’s “fighter and man of character” mourned another fighter: “I won’t shed one tear over her death . . . as far as I’m concerned she can rot in Hell,” said Bob Crow when Margaret Thatcher died.

I confess to slight stirrings of respect for the unsentimentality of the Left: not for Crow’s stupid opinion or Benn’s poisonous beliefs, but for their refusal to dissemble about people they thought bad for our country. Given their beliefs they were right to hate Margaret Thatcher. She would have hated them; in death as well as in life.

But enough of two wrongheaded men who would have dragged Britain on to the rocks if they could. They achieved nothing. The waters will now close over their heads. The more interesting question is why so many moderate Britons are reluctant to say what we really think about the dead icons of the Left?

We allow good manners to contribute to the mythologising of individuals who do big, bad things, hurt others, and leave our country worse than they found it. Most Conservatives felt uncomfortable at the Daily Mail’s attack on Ed Miliband’s Marxist late father, Ralph, for (as the paper alleged) “hating Britain”; but how much discomfort do the Left feel when writers in the Daily Mirror or The Guardian heap abuse of an often unashamedly personal nature on the memory of Margaret Thatcher, Sir Keith Joseph and other heroes of the Right?

Public figures should be publicly judged for the good or ill they do. Respect for a politician’s strength and stamina, love of opera, personal courtesy or kindness to small animals, should not smother one’s judgment of how his or her life scores on the only balance sheet that counts — the public good.

In world history many deluded leaders have been distinguished by their physical or moral courage, undoubtedly believing that they were serving those they led; and courage and courtesy are human qualities that can be displayed in the most appalling causes. Those on the Left have never shrunk from this truth; they don’t see politics as a game; they feel no sportsmanship towards those they think a danger to their version of progress.

The rest of us should learn from them. During the last century we have let a sort of lazy generosity lead to the lionising of figures of the British Left whose aims we did not support then and would not support now. Our country would be in better shape today if they had never lived, and we know it; but we murmur “hear, hear” when their names are praised.

We couldn’t begin to justify such sanctimonious cant, but we suppose it good form not to deride the Left’s kindly version of its own heroes’ lives. In failing to challenge these uncritical legacies, we’ve allowed myths to take shape that make a sensible reading of history harder to explain to younger generations.

Take Labour’s postwar Prime Minister, Clement Attlee. In the Commons, David Cameron has compared him with Margaret Thatcher as one of the four postwar prime ministers (said Mr Cameron) who “made the weather”. Heaven help us — Joe Stalin made the weather. Norman Tebbit, echoing Cameron in the House of Lords, praised Attlee and Thatcher as two prime ministers who “actually changed the country and did so in the way they wanted to change it”. And didn’t Pol Pot?

Attlee’s takeover of the coal and steel industries began a series of nationalisations that pointed postwar economic policy in wholly the wrong direction and helped to cripple our recovery. The entire economic philosophy of those who are (we coo) big figures in the history of British socialism has been abandoned as disastrous. So what’s all this guff about the great Clem Attlee?

The slow-burn catastrophe of putting health into the hands of a central state monolith was one of 20th century Britain’s most far-reaching mistakes. Do we find it hard to come to terms with the mistake because of misplaced deference to the “nobility” of their venture.

Well here’s the nobility of the Labour minister who brought it in, Aneurin Bevan, talking about the Tories: “We want the complete political extinction of the Tory party . . . So far as I am concerned, they are lower than vermin.”

Demythologising the leaders of the Left in Britain since 1945 would be a useful first step towards thinking straight about modern political history.

Forgive Michael Foot his duffle coat, but not the way that he set his face against the reform of trade union legislation and undermined Labour’s brave moderates. Tony Benn was only latterly a favourite socialist uncle: more importantly he was a poisonous force for insanity in his party. Anthony Crosland is lauded as an intellectual: he was a destroyer of our education system. Just because death or old age has drawn their teeth, why hold back from putting the boot in to these people’s malignant legacy?

“As the Lady sees it,” the late Ian Gow (Margaret Thatcher’s Parliamentary Private Secretary) once told me, “when you’re crocodile-hunting and you’ve got the reptile beached on a sandbank, you don’t help it back into the deep. You stick the knife in.”

The prophets of 20th-century socialism are beached. Stick in the knife.

Saturday, 30 September 2017

Gnostic Cult





Gnosticism is the de facto state religion of the United States.
Gnosticism defined all matter as a prison, suppressing your spirit, 
that includes nature, who they class as the "beast".  
(New Testament rightly classes man as the beast)

All 'Religious fundamentalism' is gnostic (protestant & islamic fundamentalism specifically).  
So are all conspiracy theories and deconstructionist philosophy.  
Gnosticism proclaims every construct as an obstruction to the soul, all physical, human or natural design as a "body" that constricts 
the spirit.  
The philosophy behind every orgy is also that of the jihadi suicide martyr, freeing the spirit by the violent destruction of 'the lie' of matter.  ('Zeitgeist', the film is a gnostic viewpoint, it seems unaware of this however) 
Gnosticism posits the duality of nature and spirit, believing physical incarnation to be a cosmic error*, a failed experiment, like the dinosaurs.  (It has a dislike of reptiles and nature in general). 
*(caused by "demiurges" and "archons")

Although reptiles are non-hierarchical and orgiastic, us mammals are not, we retain the old "reptilian brain" for atavistic purposes.

The Revelation of St. John contains the cryptic lines "..the word made flesh..the flesh made word".  This signifies an awareness of binary dualism,  positing the a triune concept of trinity as escape from the bicameral or 'bipolar' way of thinking.  Gnosticism causes the very thing it criticises, like the myth of Sisyphus it is schizophrenic.





Regarding the relation of mammon to gnosticism, see this excellent book:

NPJ Book Review – The Money Cult, Capitalism, Christianity and the Unmaking of the American Dream by Chris Lehman














Friday, 8 September 2017

Why be Anarchist-Monarchist

Monarchist:


Because, by having a (non-political) Monarch we can respect, we are freed to be properly disrespectful towards politicians, while remaining loyal to our country. Without a monarch, loyalty can demand political submission.
Also, the British monarch is like the king on a chessboard. He cannot attack. But by occupying his square he prevents others from doing so – politicians who long for the supremacy that monarchs have, who yearn to be escorted by booted cavalry and greeted with trumpets, and who want us to respect them even when they don’t deserve it. Especially when they don’t deserve it. 
It’s not an accident that most of the longest-lasting free, law-governed countries in the world are constitutional monarchies. Yet we seem keen to throw this advantage away, because we no longer know who we are or how we came to be so free and happy.






Thursday, 24 August 2017

Christology versus Prophetology



From Archbishop Cranmer's Blog:


"Now is not the time for knee-jerk journalism stoking anti-Muslim sentiment: the solutions to these societal tensions are to be found in the pursuit of theology; in robust comparative religion; in the fearless pursuit of Christology versus Prophetology. As the Rev’d Dr Gavin Ashenden wrote a few months ago, ‘We need to talk more about Jesus and Mohammed and less about Christianity and Islam‘. The divine mission is to witness to God’s truth, not to denigrate any of those who are made in His image.
And we certainly don’t need to convey to all Muslims that their existence or mere presence is a ‘problem’, for that way lies the validation of hatred, prejudice and faith suppression. If the problem was Jews and their Torah yesterday, and it’s the Muslims and their Qur’an today, why not Christians and their Bible tomorrow? The potential for all people of faith to be cast as outsiders or ‘others’ is ever-present. The ever-enlightened liberal-secular inquisition must forever deal with the ‘problem’ of religion, for we have all been judged and found wanting."

...

Maybe there's no "Muslim problem." Instead, perhaps, it's a "Christendom problem."  An orthodox christian, rather than a protestant, confident in his faith and culture, would not have permitted either the socio-cultural conditions (i.e., multi-culturalism and Western self-flagellation) or policy decisions (i.e., importing large numbers of persons from a culture that has been both competitive and combative with the host country culture for the past 1400 years) .






Saturday, 20 May 2017

The Great Lie Of The Left



The great lie of the left is that they are speaking for 'us', meaning the majority, the 'ordinary' person.  The same spin was used by Mussolini, and Trump. When the right say this, they are also pretending.  
The right just pretends in "we" a lot less often.  

The other nonsense of the left now is the old notion that we'd all be better off by taxing the rich. By this they now mean the uber-rich, oligarchs and multinationals.

There are at least 3 flaws in this: 

  1. Already offshore, & will move even more "offshore" if threatened by tax.
  2. The rich are better left alone by the threat of tax, as they were in the past when they felt much more obligated than now to benefit the country personally with endowments, buildings and institutes. They are simply less likely to do this with the state positioning themselves as the benefactors of the people, by taxing these people. People simply feel less obligated to personally help the homeless when the state claims to have relieved our conscience of our surrounding society.
  3. The idea shown of terrorised future of failed states with obscene Oligarchies are actually countries who had statist, socialist regimes (All of the Eastern bloc, Russia, most of Africa, most of Asia, most of South America...). That is not the situation in Europe or the U.S. where Capitalism was not banned. However damage has been done by years of statist measures, producing a class of protectionist oligarchs in its wake.

Because most people in Europe and North America haven't lived in the Eastern bloc, Russia, Africa, Asia, or South America, they don't see the damage done to these societies by past Socialism/Communism.  
They just assume the relative American recent U.S. involvement in some of these places is solely to blame, or if not, it is the legacy the old European Empire.  
The U.S. has undoubtedly been ruthlessly opportunistic; this is because these opportunities were afforded by corrupt regimes and their attendant Oligarchs, enabled by devastation wrought by Marxist regimes*. The Left in Europe don't see this is, don't see that if their anti-capitalism had any fruition whatsoever, it would disable the ability to fund anything for large amounts of people, and also the ability of free speech and any culture of criticism. Meanwhile, they live in a culture where profits are made from books, films, articles, that promote the vast bulk of critical discourse, while they deem any critique of Socialism to be allied with all the evils the world has ever known, and marginalise the relatively few intellectuals with outsider status.

After the war, it was a legitimate position of dissent to deride the western system (although they never derided the enlightenment, which is the most likely culprit for 20thC technological wars and the atom bomb). Now it is the reverse, it is a dissenting position to deride the academy, but there is even less freedom to do so than in 1945, or even 1922). This is because the academies have been shaped by the biased dialogue of complacent deconstructionism.

Besides the hypocrisy that one of the multinationals is Facebook, which the left are addicted to; the other hypocrisy is that a lot of the haute-left use tax avoidance "vehicles" themselves.  With one hand they think of nationalising rail, while on the other, disparaging the nation state as a regressive concept. Why not think about nationalising google or facebook ?

*This is not an apology for colonialism, but it is curious that genocide was comparatively rare during colonisation.
The genocide of the American Indian was done after a war of "independence".
These regimes always excuse themselves by blaming the former colonisers, ignoring the fact that they choose to model themselves almost entirely on the worst aspects of colonial rule wherever possible.








Friday, 24 March 2017

Westminster Bridge, Resignation of the Spirit






I call it murder.  Some might call it an act of terror, others an act of honour against The Great Satan.     
What do you call it ?   Corbyn was an I.R.A. sympathiser, he may of considered their atrocious acts 'the struggle'.  
Anyway the latest news was that the assailant was a 'soldier' of I.S.

Let's not wallow in media atrocity blitzkrieg.  Because if it wasn't media hyped, these acts wouldn't have a mandate to continue.  
Although this is distinctly a negative dialectic; we are still looking at religious behaviour, albeit perverted and on the gnostic end of the spectrum, purity through fire, 
and all that Cathar-sis.

Martyrdom is inspired by the relics of saints.
The appetite for this news encourages a media which, hot
as freshly pressed print - renews, inspires more mad ganja & puritan ideology-fuelled men to commit such obscene acts of 'honour'.  

But one cannot entirely blame the media. Because it is a personal shopper choice to consume films and video games involving ever increasingly high body counts, which then encourages more production of such 'media'.   If some don't seems to have appetite for such filth, and thats maybe down to the happy fact our parents weren't 'bottom feeders'.   The 'buck' has to stop with us individually, using 
our God given freedom of choice, or free will.  The fatalistic or deterministic view is a 'realist' view that what occurs is manifest and thus, destined.

Manifest destiny, that whiggish American-founding myth, escalates violence by accepting it firstly as 
not given, but made, and its why the U.S.A never solves violence in the world, only encourages more of it.  

Unfortunately, the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church also has shadows of fatalism in its concept of complete 
submission and devotion to the will of God.  In that, essentially people surrender their free will in the face of tragedy and communism.  They are all too willing to submit to the blindness of collectivism.  Asiatic Resignation, as Waugh called it. 

The triumph of the west has its locus in Roman Catholicism, not in Lutheran self-will, or Calvinist self reliance, 
which only trusts the self at the expense of everything and everybody else. 

The majestic Roman Church got the balance right: trust in God, but don't trust that you won't slink to evil, 
or that 'evil' is only external, or merely someone else's, or natures flaw.






Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Spinoza Antichrist





Fichte’s system was the offspring of Kant’s divorce of sensuous from intelligible nature, with the former dictated by necessity, the latter governed by freedom.
​  

This was Fichte and Schelling's method 
of how to separate out the original sin of Calvin's 'total depravity'​ from ergo and place it 
firmly in the bosom of nature, and with nature's interlocutor who, for the philosopher, is woman.​  

Their ideal result was the old Cartesian split, word against flesh.  




Flesh made word; Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings. Always darker, emptier, simpler.