Mises 2018 – Speeches


misescentre Schedule

10:45-11:00 – Arrivals

11:00-11:20 – Introductory remarks, Keir Martland

11:30-12:00 – Leftism versus humanity, Andy Duncan

12:00-12:30 – What can Mises UK learn from Auburn? George Pickering

12:35-14:20 – Lunch Break

14:20-14:50 – Machiavelli and modern Statism, Dr Matteo Salonia

14:50-15:20 – The metapolitics of libertarianism, Jakub Jankowski

15:20-15:50 – The Great British economy, Swithun Dobson

15:50-16:15 – Coffee Break

16:15-16:45 – Economic progress and decentralisation, Duncan Whitmore

16:45-17:15 – Libertarian Toryism, Dr Sean Gabb

17:15-17:20 – Closing remarks, Keir Martland

 

 

The Moral Case Against Equality Before The Law


The Moral Case Against Equality Before The Law
by Rev. Rory McClure

Feminists do not want the law to treat women equally to men. No sane or compassionate person would want men and women to be treated the equally before the law. Thankfully, our legal system does not practise equality before the law and hopefully it never will.

I know this sounds offensively absurd, but bear with me. You will agree with me.  In the 2007 the Labour Peer, Baroness Cortson wrote the Cortson Report[1] which made the case for maintaining and expanding the unequal status of women before the law.  In it she recognised that women have “vulnerabilities.. which fall into three categories. First, domestic circumstances and problems such as domestic violence, child-care issues, being a single-parent; second, personal circumstances such as mental illness, low self-esteem, eating disorders, substance misuse; and third, socio-economic factors such as poverty, isolation and unemployment. When women are experiencing a combination of factors from each of these three types of vulnerabilities, it is likely to lead to a crisis point that ultimately results in prison.” She goes on to argue that women must be punished less severely than men for the same crime because, “The biological difference between men and women has different social and personal consequences.”  Read more

Advertisements

Enoch Powell: The Man and his Politics


Enoch Powell: The Man and his Politics
Speech to the Conference
of the Property and Freedom Society
Bodrum, Saturday, 13th September 2014

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

Enoch Powell is one of the heroes of this novel

I may have fellow countrymen who cannot identify these words. If so, I have yet to meet them. The words are from the speech that Enoch Powell (1912-98) gave on the 20th April 1968 to the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre – a work best known as “The Rivers of Blood Speech.” It is, beyond any doubt, the most notable political speech given in England during my lifetime. It may be the most notable of the twentieth century. It made its author both the most loved and the most hated politician in the country. Shortly after the speech, dockworkers marched in his support through the centre of London. Thirty years later, at his memorial service in Westminster Abbey, the space outside was filled with a great crowd of those who had come to pay their respects. Read more

Defending Inequality


Defending Inequality
by Rev. Rory McClure

The last time humans had an equal society where everyone had the same standard of living was in the stone age. Everyone shared what they had with others and everyone had the same level of education. This equal society was so horrible that we have spent the last few thousand years trying to escape the disease, starvation and unrelenting suffering created by this equal society. Each time communists and socialists have tried to recreate an equal society, they have also recreated the disease, starvation and unrelenting suffering of an equal society. Read more

The Not So Resistible Rise of Jeremy Corbyn


The Not So Resistible Rise of Jeremy Corbyn
by Sean Gabb
19th April 2018

One of my Books
Learn More

When Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Labour Party in 2015, the Conservative Party rejoiced, and his own parliamentary party went into a long sulk. The received wisdom was that an avowed socialist, with some very iffy connections, was so unelectable that the Conservatives could expect at least five more years in office. I disagreed. Sure enough, he came a good second in the 2017 general election. I will now say with fair surety that, if there were an election next week, Mr Corbyn would get an overall majority. It might be a big overall majority.

Let me discuss the reasons. Read more

Syria & WWIII, with Tho Bishop


link-badge-itunes

On Show 21 of the MisesUK.Org podcast, Andy Duncan spoke with Tho Bishop, the Social Media and Press Editor at Mises.Org, in Auburn, Alabama, about the recent missile attack, on Syria. This was carried out by the U.S., the U.K., and the French governments, following an alleged ‘chemical attack’ on Douma, in Syria, supposedly carried out by President Assad.

Sponsored by: http://finlingo.com/

iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/misesuk-org-podcast/id1322473728

Music: http://www.bensound.com/royalty-free-music

Trashing Populism: Dim-Bulb Academic Vs. Deplorables


By ilana mercer

To say that academic elites don’t like ordinary folks is to state the obvious.

To them, Lanford, Illinois—the fictional, archetypal, working-class town, made famous by Roseanne and Dan Conner—is not to be listened to, but tamed.

A well-functioning democracy depends on it.

Taming Fishtown—Charles Murray’s version of Landford—is the thread that seems to run through  a new book, “The People vs. Democracy,” by one Yascha Mounk.

You guessed it. Mr. Mounk is not an American from the prairies; he’s a German academic, ensconced at Harvard, and sitting in judgment of American and European populism.

If only he were capable of advancing a decent argument.

“The number of countries that can plausibly be described as democracies is shrinking,” laments Mounk (“Populism and the Elites,” The Economist, March 17, 2018):

Strongmen are in power in several countries that once looked as if they were democratizing … The United States—the engine room of democratization for most of the post-war period—has a president who taunted his opponent with chants of ‘lock her up’ and refused to say if he would accept the result of the election if it went against him.

 

Elites ensconced in the academy are likely selected into these mummified institutions for a certain kind of ignorance about political theory or philosophy.

Plainly put, a chant, “lock her up,” is speech, nothing more. This Trump-rally chant might be impolite and impolitic, but on the facts, it’s not evidence of a “strongman.”

Notice how, deconstructed, nearly every utterance emitted by the technocratic and academic elites turns out to be empty assertion?

Even the subtitle of the book under discussion is sloppy political theory: “Why Our Freedom is in Danger and How to Save It” implies that democracy is the be-all and end-all of liberty. Quite the opposite.

America’s Constitution-makers did everything in their power (except, sadly, heed the Anti-Federalists) to thwart a dispensation wherein everything is up for grabs by government, in the name of the people.

Today,” claims our author,  “the popular will is increasingly coming into conflict with individual rights.” To this end, “liberal elites are willing to exclude the people from important decisions, most notably about immigration in the case of the European Union.”

He has excluded Americans from the immigration, decision-making equation. But they, too, have been eliminated from decision-making on these matters. Perhaps the anti-populism tinkerer, for Mounk is no thinker, views the levels of “exclusion” in the US, on this front, as acceptable.

Perhaps he thinks that the flow of up to two million into the US every year—changing it by the day—is done with the right degree of democratic inclusion. (How about a federal referendum on immigration, to test that?)

The popular will is fine—provided it restores the obligations of government to its constituents, not to the world, protects nation-state sovereignty, respects the founding people of Europe and the West; and protects their traditions, safety and identity. For example, by eliminating the weaponization of political concepts against The People. In the context of immigration, constructs that have been weaponized are multiculturalism and diversity.

If anything, populist leaders who want to denuclearize constructs which have been weaponized by the state are authentic leaders. The opposing elites are the interlopers.

Your common, garden-variety academic is selected and elevated in academia precisely because of a pre-existing condition: a globalist, deracinated disposition.

For that matter, humanity does not have a right to immigrate en masse to the United States or to Europe. There is no natural right to venture wherever, whenever—unless, perhaps, migrants can be confined to homesteading frontier territory.

Regrettably, the developed world is running out of frontier territory to homestead.  Besides, the only potential immigrants who still have that frontier spirit are South-African farmers. But American and European elites are uninterested in refugees who are ACTUALLY and actively being killed-off.

That would be too much like preserving “white privilege,” which is certainly not what Mounk’s about. He moans, instead, about dangerous populists, and how they’re “willing to dispense with constitutional niceties in the name of ‘the people.’”

Which “constitutional niceties” have populists dispensed with? Repealing statutory, man-made law the Left, invariably, depicts as fascism, when in fact repealing positive law is often liberating; strengthening the natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“Politics,” our author continues, “is defined by a growing battle between illiberal democracy, or democracy without rights, on the one hand, and undemocratic liberalism, or rights without democracy, on the other.

It’s hard to know what to make of such bafflegab, only that the author’s political theory has been through the progressive smelter. Democracy unfettered—social democracy, Third Wayism—adopted by all “free” nations, the US as well, in antithetical to the liberty envisioned by the American Founding Fathers.

Why so? Because in this fetid democracy, every aspect of individual life is up for government control. The very idea that a few hundred clowns in two chambers could represent hundreds of millions of individuals is quintessentially illiberal. And impossible.

The kind of “undemocratic liberalism” the author sneers at is likely the classical liberalism of the 19th century, where the claims the mass of humanity could levy against individuals in a particular territory were severely curtailed, if not non-existent.

Finally, what would an academic be without a brand of demeaning, economic reductionism? The lumpenproletariat are economically distressed. That’s Yascha Mounk’s final diagnosis. That’s why populism is surging.

Tossed in their direction, Chinese-made trinkets will do wonders to improve the mood of this seething, racist, mass of Deplorables. Then Mounk and his friends can move in to make the right decisions for us.

Harvard’s Chosen’s One chalks populism up to “the laws of globalization.” Deal with it or die.

Or, as advocated by Kevin D. Williamson, a NeverTrumper formerly of National Review:

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets … The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.” (“The Father-Führer,” March 28, 2016.)

 

You see, working-class “losers” are being labelled illiberal fascists for—wait for it!—wanting a local economy around which to center flesh-and-blood communities.

A real Heil-Hitler moment!

This populism-detesting academic (Yascha Mounk) is a theoretical utilitarian and bad one at that. He refuses to “grapple with the nuances” of the issues that make for misery or mirth among ordinary men and women. Instead, he grumbles that his gang of “technocratic elites” needs to moderate its ambitions, given that they’re not working with much (dumb Deplorables).

Here’s the truth about the nationalism against which the political and pedagogic elites rail:

[It] has often been cast by the historically triumphant Left as fascistic. Yet historically, this Right rising has represented broad social strata: It has represented the bourgeoisie—middle-class, liberal and illiberal, standing for professional and commercial interests. It has stood for the working class, the landed aristocracy, the (Catholic) clergy, the military, labor unions, standing as one against the radical Communist or anarchist Left, which promised—and eventually delivered—bloody revolution that destroyed organic, if imperfect, institutions. (“The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” p. 234

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

« Older Entries