Neocons: Quake in your boots!

I should write something about the US presidential election, but not today. In the meantime, the above video is Farage at his absolute best.



  • If “the best” Farage can do is speak at a Trump rally, I’m glad I’ve never wasted any attention on him.

    • Then why break with your lazy habits now?

      • Because I pay attention to Libertarian Alliance in general and to Sean Gabb and Keir Martland in particular. If they find something interesting enough to mention, I’m generally willing to have a look.

  • I’m struck by the incongruity of a relatively obscure (from an American point-of-view) English politician speaking at a Trump rally in a provincial American city.

    Shouldn’t he be giving speeches in English cities, rallying the fight for Brexit and helping to make sure it happens?

    It’s all very strange.

    • Farage is a consummate self publicist who’s never really had any concrete policies or political direction. An actual for real Brexit would leave him without a role. In any case, Brexit isn’t going to happen and Farage knows that as well as any other Brit politician.

      • Well, whether Brexit happens is another matter. I know you keep banging this drum, but even if Brexit doesn’t happen, that won’t prove you right since you don’t have a crystal ball. You’re just guessing it won’t happen. It could just as easily go ahead on some basis favourable to the Remainers. It’s clear that EFTA/EEA provides the Remainers with a very satisfactory Plan B destination, which I expect is what they are aiming for. If that is how things pan out, I suppose you could still come on here and say you told us so, since EFTA membership is pretty much associate EU membership anyway.

        Let me get my gracious, magnanimous concession in now, in advance – it’s EFTA. So you told us so. Satisfied?

        The way I see it is that Brexit was supposed to be just the beginning of a long struggle towards ethnic sovereignty within some new political settlement – perhaps paeleo-libertarian in nature. All this talk about, ‘What will UKIP do now?’, was a load of twaddle. There’s plenty to do, and I thought UKIP were more perspicacious than this.

        When the vote was won back in June, the fight had just begun. That was the ‘end of the beginning’, if you like. It was the START of things for UKIP, not the end. That is what Farage should have said in his victory speech – “Now we must fight for the REAL victory”, etc. I thought everybody knew this, and I don’t understand why Nigel Farage then threw in the towel and walked away. At that point, he had achieved nothing.

        So, something isn’t right. Something doesn’t add somewhere. My best guess is that the Establishment didn’t expect a Brexit victory, and they must now scramble around for the solution that keeps us in the EU in all but name. Meanwhile, Farage has been leaned on, to ensure that UKIP are neutered and can’t capitalise on the referendum result.

        • It’s true that in the highly unlikely event something that you can characterize as Brexit does appear it won’t actually separation from EU – free movement of EU Citizens will be included and the whole immigration/migration rigamarole will continue to fester, for example.
          But I’m not talking about that. Read my lips, “there will be no Brexit, it was never on cards.” The referendum was a political miscalculation by Cameron and simply proves what a dumb ass he always was.
          The Brexit referendum doesn’t even have real constitutional legitimacy unlike many of the referenda in other countries that were over-ridden by various outrageous shenanigans.
          It should be blindly obvious to any one capable of objective rational analysis that Brexit was never going to happen. It’s clear you’re just engaging in magical thinking and, of course, prefer to shoot the messenger.
          Get over yourselves. In any case, most of the leave vote was about dissatisfaction with the status quo rather than some starry eyed belief in an England made great again thanks to traditional values.

          • You seem to have this bee in your bonnet about the subject, so let me just make myself clear:

            I can’t see into the future, therefore I don’t know whether Brexit will happen or not. Only a fool would predict things with certainty, which is not to say that you are a fool – I would not be so churlish as to suggest such – but is to say that you are being slightly foolish.
            If Brexit doesn’t happen, that won’t have proved you right, since you can’t see into the future and you have no inside information on the plans and intentions of government ministers. You’re just guessing about what might or might not happen, albeit I will concede you are offering up the results of an educated guess and your guess may well turn out to be accurate. I must therefore also concede that if your guess does turn out to be accurate, it will have been more than luck.
            I agree with you that even if Brexit does happen, it will be in a neutered form. The question then will be whether this will just be a staging post to greater national sovereignty (as Dr. North and the FLexCiters seem to hope for) or just proof that the whole thing has been one big scam.
            You don’t need to condescend to us. I think all commentators on here know that the political system is essentially a sham and we’re being lied to, but it doesn’t follow that the stated objectives of national sovereignty and proper borders are not achievable. As you must know, the way politics (or Realpolitik, to be more accurate) works is that you have to hitch your ride on the back of somebody you might not like.
            I don’t think we should confuse ‘politics’ with ‘Realpolitik’. The two things are very different and the methods available to practitioners of Realpolitik are often palatable. I agree with you that anybody who thought that the Brexit referendum was the end point was being naive – but sometimes you have to be willing to suffer fools.

            • @tom rogers. Brexit will not happen. It’s not a matter for speculation. These things are decided way in advance and it’s blindly obvious that Brexit was never intended. it’s not a question of what I believe it’s a question of how the world actually works. You can ramble on all you like as if your opinions actually matter but it’s what really happens that matters. There will be no Brexit. To think otherwise is the insanity of a person who has invested in the idea that voting really matters, in spite of the voluminious evidence to the contrary.

              • John,

                I don’t doubt your view on the likelihood of Brexit. Any thoughts on May’s meeting day after tomorrow with the cabinet to discuss implementing it? Just a dog and pony show, or an indication of intent that you expect to be frustrated?

              • John,

                Your comments are straw man and don’t relate to my own comments.

                I don’t think my opinions matter and as I’ve already stated here and countless times in other comments, I know that voting and the political system are a sham.

                Neither of those things mean that Brexit won’t happen. However, I have already conceded that if Brexit does happen, it will most likely be EFTA membership or an equivalent status that is EU membership in all but name.

        • I’m fairly certain he has been threatened to leave. The Tories also wanted him having no part in any Brexit negotiations. Even Boris, an insider, has been neutered. I doubt this has anything to do with Farage simply being a self-publicist, he has been an ardent believer in regaining sovereignty for over a decade. As for the charge that his party lacks policies by the earlier poster, most of these policies are promises written on paper barely worth use in a lavatory, even if they intend to keep them. The Tories are ample demonstration of it. He and most of the party’s upper echelons are well known to have libertarian/small c sympathies but the media will always demonise them for it, out of its love for the corporate state. Even suggestions of considering a Dutch style healthcare system were met with hysterical howls of wanting to ‘Americanise’ the health care system. The Tories took a good number of their policies and co-opted them into their own electoral policies. But it matters little; it’s the overall goal which you cite, which matters. He has helped shift the ideological trajectory of the country and the topics of debate, and I suspect he’d press for actual Brexit, hence he is persona non grata.

  • With-a-bound-he-was-free isn’t how politics work. I think we are more likely to “leave” than not, but the Referendum vote was only part of a struggle that is taking place on both sides of the Atlantic. It may be that, as in the late 1970s, a significant grouping within the ruling class has decided that present policies have us full speed on collision course, and that there must be some change of direction. It’s up to us to use the better means available now to make sure the change of course is a better one than we got in 1979-80.

    • Sean,

      Do you know if there was any polling done prior to the vote on whether or not voters understood what the “leave” outcome would actually mean?

      Perhaps I underestimate the average human intelligence, but if I had to bet on what such a poll would reveal, my money would be on the largest percentage — at least a plurality, probably a majority — of voters believing that once the votes were counted, if “leave” won, the UK would automatically no longer be in the EU.

      The short-term reaction of those voters to the reality of the situation was probably something along the lines of “what the f**k is this ‘Article 50’ crap? I voted for the UK to leave the EU, not for the UK’s government to start talking about the possibility of opening negotiations which would eventually result in the creation of a framework under which the UK might, at some point, leave the EU.”

      The long-term reaction? Presumably a New Jersey style shrug and “whaddayagonnado?” Those voters thought they were exercising great power. Now they know it was just a snow job and that absent a bona fide pitchforks and fowling pieces revolution, the political class is going to continue to do whatever the hell it decides to do.

      • In any political system, outside a newish and energetic police state, power rests on at least the passive consent of the governed. When this goes, it usually ebbs quietly away in the first instance. The defining moments we read about in the history books are more symptoms than causes. Consent in England has been going since about 2000. Stopping us from leaving the European Union will no more restore consent than taking aspirin cures a cold. Ditto if Mrs Clinton somehow wins in America. Something has changed on both sides of the Atlantic, and nothing can put it back together – though where and when it will go are matters beyond me at present.

        • Sean,

          That power rests on the consent of the governed as a matter of both legitimacy and efficacy is an attractive and popular idea. However, I’m not sure that it’s an eternal truth with respect to efficacy.

          In the US, the president is usually elected by 20-25% of the population. A recurring Rasmussen poll usually says that even fewer than that “believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed.”

          I suppose there’s always long-term hope. The Soviet Union survived for more than 70 years but did eventually disintegrate. But I think it’s possible — or at least I fear — that Burnham’s managerial state may have evolved beyond the need for either actual or formal consent.

          Perhaps the libertarian movement is just Winston Smith deluding himself as to the possibility of taking on and dismantling that state. In such an analogy, of course, the paleoconservative would be the old man in the bar bemoaning the transition from pint to half-liter.

          • Consent is intangible, but is felt when it is gone. See the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe in 1989. The state authorities still had men with guns. But the authorities suddenly found they dared not ask the men to open fire.

            By the way, I used the phrase “passive consent.” A government doesn’t need electoral majorities or active love to be accepted. It just needs to be accepted.

            • Sean,

              Yes, I understand what you’re saying. I wasn’t asking what you meant. I was asking whether or not it actually remains true.

  • Why is your Grandad doing your comments now Mr Knapp?

    What happened to the cowboy hat? Was it shot off? Along with your testes if the weak-knead tone of your remarks is anything to go by. Have you lost heart? Have you heard that Killery is arranging a mysterious accident for you ?

    Farage is not a deep thinker but he has still done more for the cause of freedom than you are ever likely to. You should reflect on that.

    Buck up.

    Mr Pate :Never knew pate could be made from gall bladder. Get over your own bullshit. Brexit is happening.

    NB–IanB –if you are out there –this might interest you if you haven’t seen it already.

    • Mr. Ecks,

      If I wanted any shit out of you, I’d squeeze your head.

  • You have enough of your own to choke on. But not enough to choke the rest of us.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s