Tag Archives: civilisation

Why we are Where we Are – Part Two


Why we are Where we Are – Part Two

By Duncan Whitmore

In Part One of this two-part series of essays we explained how events in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries shifted Western society from a preponderance of the “economic means” to the “political means” characterised by a transition away from the tendencies on the right hand side of the following table to those on the left hand side:

Fig. A

In this essay, we will explore the moral and cultural gulfs that are now swallowing Western society (addressing the puzzling question of why the right has been so defenceless against it), before examining how Western liberal democratic polity over the past thirty years has produced the situation in which we find ourselves today. Read more

Why we are Where we are – Part One


Why we are Where we are – Part One 

By Duncan Whitmore

Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have once said that “the facts of life are conservative”. An equivalent for libertarians is “the facts of life are Austrian”. We may well dispute the justice, inevitability or even desirability of the libertarian ethic of non-aggression, but one cannot escape the fact that the corpus of economic law, derived from the self-evident proposition that individuals act, is undeniably true. So however much you may yearn for some form of centralised economic planning or state management to abolish all “exploitation” before building castles in the land of milk and honey, this economic law cannot be defied for ever and, eventually, reality must come back to bite you on the arse. Amongst the myopia of COVID-19 and the furore of the culture war, a broader perspective of the era we are living through – and probably have been living through since 2008 at the latest – will reveal a culminating fight between a massive reassertion of economic law on the one hand and increasing attempts to continue the defiance on the other.

This essay, the first of two parts, will explore the paths that have been taken prior to our arrival at the political, economic and social situation in which we find ourselves in the early twenty-first century. In Part Two we will look specifically at the ongoing culture war before examining the consequences of all of these dynamics. From this, readers may be able to see how year’s this calamities – barely imaginable just six or seven months ago – have resulted from the choices that have been made in the past. Read more

Notre-Dame Burns – a Tragic Symbol of our Civilisation?


Notre-Dame Burns – a Tragic Symbol of our Civilisation?

By Duncan Whitmore

As most readers will have heard, the famed Notre-Dame de Paris, one of the most splendid examples of French gothic architecture and an icon of European religious and cultural heritage, was severely damaged by fire on Monday of this week. Such was the dominance of the building that has owned the Paris skyline for centuries before the Eiffel Tower, the sight of huge flames and thick smoke billowing out as they consumed the irreplaceable edifice was captured first-hand by much of the city’s population.

The fact that this terrible event should happen now to such a splendorous achievement of Western civilisation – and in the very city which is currently experiencing the most explicit degree of discontentment with globalising policies – is a symbol of tragic irony. This cathedral managed to survive the calamities of the French Revolution and two world wars – yet it has had to cling on to life by the very tips of its fingernails in the era of twenty-first century leftism. All of those politicians and pundits who took to Twitter to express their grief at the loss of a cultural icon – among them Macron, Merkel, Clinton, Obama, as well as the EU clowns of the Juncker/Verhofstadt variety – are the very people we can see are doing their level best to destroy the civilisation and cultural heritage that this cathedral represented. Read more

Economic Myths #9 – Social Safety Nets


It is often trumpeted as a virtue that “civilised”, social democratic countries offer their citizens one or more types of “social safety net” in an attempt to eliminate the most dire effects of, say, unemployment, illness or some other kind of incapacity that could inflict a condition of extreme poverty upon the individual members of the citizenry. The idea is that the most basic wants will always be guaranteed by the state should one be unable to provide them for oneself and no one need have any fear of hunger or lack of shelter – situations that are said to be “intolerable” in a modern, twenty-first century society.

The first problem with this theory is that poverty is not some selectively appearing disease that makes a magical appearance every now and then to infect an otherwise healthy and wealthy society. Rather, poverty is the natural state in which human beings first found themselves. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden they saw that the world was a barren and harsh place that is capable of providing precious little – may be just air to breathe – without the conscious effort of its inhabitants. The only way to alleviate this terrible situation is for humans to work to produce the goods that they need and, eventually, to bring about capital investment in order to expand the amount of consumer goods that can be enjoyed – whether it’s cheap food, housing, education, holidays or whatever – a process that only really got underway in any significant form in the 1800s. Read more

Libertarian Alliance Quote of the Day


David Davis

“The general character and disposition of the Rationalist are, I think, not difficult to identify. At bottom he stands for independence of mind on all occasions, for thought free from obligation to any authority save the authority of `reason’. His circumstances in the modern world have made him contentious: he is the enemy of authority, of prejudice, of the merely traditional, customary or habitual. His mental attitude is at once sceptical and optimistic: sceptical, because there is no opinion, no habit, no belief, nothing so firmly rooted or so widely held that he hesitates to question it and to judge it by what he calls his `reason’; optimistic, because the Rationalist never doubts the power of his `reason’ (when properly applied) to determine the worth of a thing, the truth of an opinion or the propriety of an action.”[1]


Michael Oakeshott

You can see the full Libertarian Alliance publication from which this quote is truncated right off the top, here:-

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/libhe/libhe015.pdf

The LPUK replies to our post about Gramscian alteration of cultures


Ian Parker-Joseph (Leader, The Libertarian Party of the UK)

(The following is a published comment on our original posting, reprinted as a formal post here, by kind permission of IP-J.)

I do not feel that you have gone far enough in your analysis, and whilst the view of history can be described in the manner your have described, you have not yet brought this up to date.

There is a much more insidious movement that underlies what we see going on around us. It is Communitarianism. It too is Fabian based, and is also determined to break down our historic and societal structures, so that it may build, right across the newly forming geo-political groupings society created and managed from the centre, and ultimately managed on a global basis.

Communitarianism is now present in the policy structure in all 3 major poltical parties in the UK, presented benignly as ‘progressive’ politics, they will dictate what communities should look like, how they should behave and what the demographics will be.

Progressive destruction always preceeds ‘progressive’ rebuilding, and all the parties have been responsible over the past 30-40 years for this happening here in the UK. Miners, fishermen, Steel, Farming are only some of the industries that have been forfieted in the name of Communitarianism.

The overall plan, to firstly destroy communities then to rebuild, not in the name of freedom for the people, under the rule of law, but in the name of controlled populations ruled BY laws, totally. Totalitarianism by any other name.

How does this happen without people knowing? Slowly, slice by slice.

Arnold Toynbee observed the lessons of history, in essence, when he said, “…all great Nations commit suicide”. We simply have to speed things along.

Here’s the plan:

1. Firstly, we must promote “Multiculturalism”. To support this, we will make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal, and that cultural differences are not important.
For instance, if any point out that drop-out rates are high for young Blacks, we respond by saying that this is entirely due to the prejudice and discrimination of the indigenous population. We refuse to countenance any other explanations.

2. The religious beliefs of immigrants must be accepted, not only as equal to, but superior to, those traditionally held in Britain. This must be done most carefully, so that liberal elements in the various churches can assist in their own downfall.

3. Encourage immigrants to settle together so that they have no need to take on the culture of the majority. Again, the key to this will be the constant promotion of ‘Diversity’ rather than ‘Unity’. When all that is left to hold us together is tolerance and pluralism we will have destroyed what is meant by being British!

4. We will encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture.
It will be important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in close proximity. Thereby reinforcing their differences.

5. But this isn’t all. We must make our fastest growing demographic groups the least educated. This will add a second underclass; a class unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to the indigenous majority. If we can make this underclass have a 50% drop out rate from school, so much the better.

6. We will of course have to get big business and liberal foundations to give our efforts to create diversity lots of money. We will invest in ethnic identities, and establish the cult of victimology. We will persuade the minorities that their lack of success is the fault of the majority.
This will enable the development of a ‘grievance industry’, which will blame all minority failures on the indigenous population. This will keep the majority intimidated. Because they won’t want to be labelled xenophobic or racist, they will rapidly become afraid to, even question, what is happening.

7. We will constantly find reason to celebrate Diversity. ‘Diversity’ is a wonderfully seductive word, don’t you think? It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Never forget that diverse peoples, artificially thrown together, worldwide, generally end up hating each other. That is when they are not killing each other. So preach ‘Diversity’ at every opportunity!
Remember, it is against historical precedent to have a diverse, peaceful, and stable society. Remember also that in general terms, people undervalue the unity that’s needed to keep a nation together. We will take advantage of this natural Myopia.
If we are successful, and we will be, (just so long as can keep the plan hidden from the majority for long enough) we will be able to Balkanise Britain as easily as Yugoslavia.
(And now for the really good bits)

8. We will place all these subjects ‘off limits’- taboo to talk about. In the Middle Ages the threat of being called a ‘Heretic’ stopped discussion and paralysed thought. For our purposes, words such as ‘Racist’, ‘Bigot’, and ‘Xenophobe’ will serve to halt argument and conversation opposed to our plan!

9. Having established ‘Multiculturalism’, (and ‘Multilingualism’) alongside the doctrine of ‘Victimology’ we will next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. We will repeatedly say that as immigration has been good for Britain in the past, it must always be good. We will endeavour to ensure every immigrant (especially those with strong religious beliefs, i.e., Muslims), whilst occupying the same or overlapping geographic areas as the indigenous people, do so with minimal interbreeding. We will of course ignore the cumulative impact!

10. And finally, we will no doubt have to create one or two new political parties to facilitate this. They will serve political blind alley’s to siphon off any who question what is happening. We will help the leaders, we select, keep control, by ridiculing their organisations, whilst labelling their supporters as right wing and out of touch.
A similar approach will be adopted towards any genuinely ‘Nationalist’ organisation that showed signs of growth, for such an occurrence would be a direct danger to ‘The Plan’. So, if such a group appears, on top of labelling them racist and xenophobic, we will also launch a massive negative-publicity campaign against them. We will use the police and intelligence agencies to harass their activists, attempt to bankrupt them and, amend voting procedures to deny such a group access to political power. (Scottish voting debacle ring any bells)

Did you recognise the 10 points of the plan to destroy Britain? You should do, as this ‘Plan’ was put into operation decades ago, and the final section of the ‘Plan’ is now being actively used – against Parties such as the BNP, UKIP and occasionally many of the other hundreds of registered political parties, unions, blogs,and many individuals.

It is no small co-incidence that all the major parties now follow the same centrist policies. The One Party State, as David describes from history above is the fate that awaits us under the ‘progressive’ politics of the Conservatives, Labour, Libdems and the EU.

Joe Kennedy the bootlegger


David Davis

Further to my last posting, I just did want to say that, in view of it being wrong for the State to prohibit any drugs, there was nothing intrinsically wrong in Joe Kennedy being a bootlegger. He merely took advantage of an available window.

It’s just that his exalted reputation stands today on the fact that hiding one’s bootlegger history is regarded as good, if you can engineer your enty to the Enemy-Class as a getout.

If the State was  “a good” (as opposed to a bad thing), then bootlegging would not have existed, and the Kennedys would have been failed immigrant Irish beggars. I wonder if WW2 would perhaps then have finished earlier than it did, since the USA would have received different diplomatic advice in early 1940?

I must also add that I have no grudge against the Irish, who ought always to have been our brothers and sisters in adversity and triumph – whatever the weather –  as I have said for about 14 years on eurorealist. After all, they live only about 80 miles from me here at the furthest, and are closely related to whoever lives here in the North with us all, because of Vikings and that stuff.

There is an argument that the Irish saved the world. I lean towards it sometimes myself. You might not agree but you can discuss it on here if you want.

« Older Entries