Monday, 18 December 2017

From one year ago


"All holders of public office will have to swear an oath of allegiance to British values in an attempt to combat extremism. Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, said it was not possible for people to play a “positive role” in public life unless they accepted such basic values as democracy, equality and freedom of speech." (The Times.)

I hate the idea of equality, except equality before the law, which is completely discrete from all other uses of the word equality and is a form of freedom. It means fair trials.

I am like Mr. Gladstone, 'an out and out inegalitarian'.

Freedom and equality are antithetical.

And nations are not made of values, but blood and history and shared jokes, but mostly, in the British case, blood.

I am a democrat, but not a theoretical one who thinks universal suffrage is some sort of moral law and that we should have had it in 1900.

In any case, Englishmen should swear allegiance to H.M. the Queen. not to ideas, even good ones.


  1. Patient as Philosophers

    "Therefore, under the teaching of Socrates, it did not escape the notice of Plato, that the force of justice consists in equality, since all are born in an equal condition. Therefore, he says, they must have nothing private or their own; but that they may be equal, as the method of justice requires, they must possess all things in common. This is capable of being endured, as long as it appears to be spoken of money. But how impossible and how unjust this is, I could show by many things. Let us, however, admit its possibility. For grant that all are wise, and despise money. To what, then, did that community lead him? Marriages also, he says, ought to be in common; so that many men may flock together like dogs to the same woman, and he who shall be superior in strength may succeed in obtaining her; or if they are patient as philosophers, they may await their turns, as in a brothel. "

    Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius,
    The Divine Institutions

  2. "And nations are not made of values, but blood and history and shared jokes, but mostly, in the British case, blood."

    Yes this is correct. All nations that have ever existed have depended mostly on blood ties whether they officially admitted it or not. This goes for whether it is a nation state, a multinational empire or city state. Every polity needs an ethnic core for its foundation. Even revolutionary France owed its legitimacy to the idea of the "children of the Fatherland" rising in arms against foreign monarchs rather than the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The Germans made up the core of the state in Austro-Hungary and were the group that created and sustained that Empire. The Habsburgs' priority however was to hold the Empire together and to appease the quarrelling nationalities so the Germans were taken for granted. In the same way, (only much worse) American whites who built, sustain and fight for the US are treated with contempt by the US government today. This is because America's Founding Fathers made the devastatingly stupid and unforgivable mistake of defining their new state in classical liberal terms even though they all admitted elsewhere in their own writings that only people of European stock could maintain the type of society in which they wanted to live. Genetic similarity i.e blood is the key building block of any political community. Race trumps everything else: Ideology, abstract civic creeds, economism, even religion.

    1. This is true. Nothing else can match race because its based on biology. Studies show babies become racially conscious by the age of 9 months and people are mentally healthier in monoracial communities. We now know ethnocentrism is biologically hardwired not culturally learned. Ethnic kinship therefore is the most natural, primordial foundational principle for the basis of a society. As Benjamin Disraeli said "all is race; there is no other truth." By the end of the 19th Century thid was common sense knowledge to every educated person. Tragically, Western society "unlearned" it during the mid-20th Century for reasons which were completely unscientific but entirely political.

    2. Your Time Hasn't Come Yet

  3. I am a democrat, but not a theoretical one who thinks universal suffrage is some sort of moral law and that we should have had it in 1900.

    Representative democracy is not democracy. Representative democracy is a mechanism for crushing actual democracy. It's a mechanism for ensuring that the the voice of the people does not get heard.

    It's the biggest and most successful con job in history.

    1. "Representative democracy is not democracy. Representative democracy is a mechanism for crushing actual democracy. It's a mechanism for ensuring that the the voice of the people does not get heard."

      As Oswald Mosley said once "When they speak democracy, they don't mean government by the people...they mean financial democracy, in which money counts and nothing but money." And he was right. Representative Democracy is a big fat joke because you don't get to get to vote for those who own the mass media. Nor do you get to vote for those who control the banks or the special interests who buy the politicians. Democracy is the perfect system for oligarchic control because when it comes down to it the people have close to 0% influence on what the government does, yet they are held 100% responsible. Whenever the government launches another war of aggression that serves the interests of a tiny minority its back to "Oh well, we get the government we deserve" which few people can argue with. And then they say "we" bombed their countries so "we" i.e. "you plebs" must accept the refugees.

      The voice of the people means nothing in America or any Western country. This should now be obvious to even the dumbest half wit. If you're someone who thinks your people have a right to retain their identity your views are already all but illegal in Britain and Germany. In America you may not be arrested but you will be thrown out of your job and hunted down and destroyed by the ADL, SPLC or NGO backed terror groups like AntiFa. The only European countries in which the views of the normal majority still count for something are Hungary and Russia, which of course are under relentless globalist attack for this very reason. You have odious eurocrats like Guy Verhofstadt basically standing on piles of corpses butchered by Islamic migrants, howling at Orban for not wanting to join in the slaughter and rape of his own citizens. He has been deemed guilty of "subverting democracy" because he refuses to allow a mega-rich financier (or "philanthropist" as the MSM keep referring to Soros) to subvert the popular will of Hungarians. Ergo democracy = subversion of the popular will. Parliamentary democracy is and always has been a scam to make the sheeple think they have a say. There has never been a worse conceived form of government apart from total Bolshevism.

  4. 'democracy = subversion of the popular will'

    American scholar Kenneth Arrow, for example, has proved the impossibility of defining any general will or general interest among voters because of the singular nature and diversity of individual preferences. But it seems this impossibility does not stop those who pretend to speak in the name of an imperceptible and nonexistent popular will. Even if this anthropomorphism is completely irrelevant, it is terribly effective on the political stage.

    Attributing a proper will to a community reinforces the power of those willing to dominate it, even if only freely and contract-based human collectivities can pretend to act in the name of the individuals who compose them. The problem with the state is that it does not correspond to that definition, even if it uses universal suffrage to elect its leaders. Therefore, any pretension of government to personify the interests and the soul of its subjects is a falsehood.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Kenneth Arrow is probably best known for his Ph.D. dissertation (on which his book Social Choice and Individual Values is based), in which he proved his famous “impossibility theorem.” He showed that under certain assumptions about people’s preferences between options, it is always impossible to find a voting rule under which one option emerges as the most preferred. The simplest example is Condorcet’s paradox, named after an eighteenth-century French mathematician. Condorcet’s paradox is as follows: There are three candidates for office; let us call them Bush (B), Clinton (C), and Perot (P). One-third of the voters rank them B, C, P. One-third rank them C, P, B. The final third rank them P, B, C. Then a majority will prefer Bush to Clinton, and a majority will prefer Clinton to Perot. It would seem, therefore, that a majority would prefer Bush to Perot. But in fact a majority prefers Perot to Bush. Arrow’s more complicated proof is more general.