Still Chained to Communist Slavery - Dr Frank Ellis

  • 1 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Still Chained to Communist Slavery - Dr Frank Ellis
« on: March 07, 2013, 10:33:23 PM »
Parteigenosse Eric Hobsbawm: Still Chained to Communist Slavery - Dr Frank Ellis


Submitted by Louis on 2 October 2012 - 6:18pm

Content on the Traditional Britain Blog and Library does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Traditional Britain Group
By Dr Frank Ellis
A recent programme of BBC Radio 4?s Archive on 4 was dedicated to the life and works of the Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawm.1 One of the striking things to emerge from Simon Schama?s extended interview with Hobsbawm was that the interviewee?s commitment to Marxism had not diminished or even been fundamentally re-evaluated in the light of the final collapse of the Soviet Union and its East European empire in 1985-1991. Hobsbawm even re-affirmed his commitment to Marxism, oblivious or indifferent to the fact that Marxist regimes had slaughtered tens of millions of people in trying to build some global socialist utopia.

Marxism, contrary to Hobsbawm, is not based on reason. Nor does Marxism seek earthly justice: Marxism is anti-man; it is anti-reason; it is anti-thought; it is ideological superstition and witchcraft; it is the assertion of collective power in all circumstances over the individual, a doctrine of absolute power pursued by a small group of ruthless and unscrupulous ideological gangsters who, claiming to have interpreted the meaning of History, demand the right to exercise dominion over mankind (naturally for the benefit of mankind). People who object to being ruled over by economic ignoramuses, venal academic-ideologues and the fanatics of class war will be exterminated, as will all other persons and, above all, all classes deemed to be blocking the way to the new secular order. This is the obscene cult to which Hobsbawm has enslaved his life.
Hobsbawm betrays a great deal of ignorance about England, ignorance which has not been corrected by the many years spent in this country. He tells Schama that compared to the Berlin of the years 1931-1933 England was a boring place. Two immediate observations can be made. First, Hobsbawm could have stayed in Berlin and not been bored, and second, he could have returned there ? to East Berlin ? in 1945. In passing, I have to ask why Hobsbawm did not return to the socialist paradise being built in East Germany after May 1945. I can well imagine that the Berlin of the years 1931-1933 was rather lively but then continental Europeans often seem to be gripped by periodic bouts of millenarian madness which leads them to believe that they have found the path to paradise. All the viciousness that tore Europe apart in the twentieth century, in order of ascending nastiness - corporatism, fascism, real-existing disgusting socialism, National Socialism and the Supreme Evil of Communism ? all found their most fanatical devotees in Central and Eastern Europe. The latest bout of utopian distemper goes by the name of the European Union. Some English Euro-sceptics even refer to the EU as the 4th Reich or the Soviet Union Mk. II, thereby showing that they understand the totalitarianism inherent in all Great Plans. If you wish to understand why the grandiose schemes of social engineering end in murder and mayhem you have to repair to Burke who more honestly and accurately appraises man, his aspirations and his institutions than the mendacious prolixity of Marx and Lenin and their acolyte followers like Hobsbawm.
That Hobsbawm has learned nothing from living in England and that he has failed to grasp the fact that ideologies dedicated to remaking man and transforming him into some gruesome socialist robot have failed, and were doomed to fail, is demonstrated by his admiration of the Communist Manifesto. There are only two types of person that can admire such a hideous manifesto: those who want to exercise power over all other people; and those who are willing to submit to such power provided that their material needs are met, slaves in other words, people born for the whip (but at least they know they are slaves and they enjoy the kiss of the whip). I assume that Hobsbawm sees himself as some kind of Marxist Grand Inquisitor ruling over the dumb proletariat and wielding his whip for their benefit in between sequestering the assets of the hated middle classes and so reducing them to servitude and penury. It goes without saying that no serious Marxist could or would ever derive any envious pleasure from expropriating and defiling the hated expropriators. It is done out of a sense of duty to History (really).

In the interview there are the occasional flashes of common sense. Hobsbawm asserts that history is all about change and how we came from caves out of Africa and ended up where we are. Not bad, but this is basic O level. History is also about continuity amid change. Heraclitus knows what I am on about. Hobsbawm also warns about the dangers of blurring fact and fiction (does that apply to the Communist Manifesto Parteigenosse Hobsbawm?) and upholds the importance of narrative to history because time is of the essence: ?Without chronology there can be no history?. Historians, he says, must be sceptical and resist the creation of myths. This is all reasonable stuff but where does his call for historians to be sceptical and to oppose myths fit in with his refusal to face the truth about Marxism and its vicious myths, especially the myth of the working class and the myth that Marxism is devoted to freedom, brotherhood of man and equality? Marxism is mass murder not mass enlightenment. Hobsbawm also insists that ?historians must become a danger to nationalists?. There is nothing wrong with nationalism per se. The dangers arise when Marxists and now multiculturalists try to deny it and to suppress it (look what happened in Yugoslavia). Then you get a nasty backlash. If you try to suppress or to destroy a man?s patrimony do not be surprised if he fights back. If historians should be a danger to anyone it should be to liars, Marxist ideologues and falsifiers. Again, when Hobsbawm states that historians operate through reason and evidence one has to ask whether that prescription applies to Hobsbawm himself and his devotion to Marxism in 2012 or whenever Schama recorded his grovelling interview.
Some 36 minutes into the programme and I have still not picked up any mention of Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot or any reference to the genocide carried out by communist regimes in the 20th century. Finally, in the 45th minute, we reach the question for which I had been waiting. Hobsbawm is asked why he stayed in the Communist Party. Ever solicitous and unctuous, Schama and the programme editor avoid posing any awkward questions by the expedient of citing part of an earlier interview with Sue Lawley on 5th March 1995 (I am sure it is pure coincidence but Stalin died on 5th March 1953). When asked about mass murder in the Soviet Union by Lawley, Hobsbawm says that he did not know; he says he did not believe the details, perhaps, he says, he did not want to believe them (so much for evidence then and the reliability of Marxist historians). He says: ?We did not know the extent of it? [communist mass murder]. Lawley then asks whether such was his dedication to the dream of communism that any kind of sacrifice was worth the price:
Hobsbawm: ?Yes, I think so?
 Lawley: ?Even the sacrifice of millions of lives??
 Hobsbawm: ?Well that?s what we felt we had fought WWII for, didn?t we??
 Lawley: ?Is there a difference between killing some one in war and killing your own??
 Hobsbawm: ?We didn?t know that?.
As Hobsbawm says ?We didn?t know that? you can detect the utter fear and panic in his voice. This is the question he has known would come and has dreaded. Hobsbawm clumsily dodges the question and Lawley lacks the killer instinct to press the point of the knife to his throat. No listener can be convinced by Hobsbawm?s repulsive denial. There is, of course, a universe of difference between killing the enemy in war for survival and butchering millions of kulaks, so-called class enemies in the 1930s (circa 11,000,000) in order to build socialism. The fact that Hobsbawm claims not to see any difference between communist class war and a national fight for survival denigrates the struggle that Britain waged against Nazi Germany. According to Hobsbawm?s perverted view there is no difference between British soldiers killing German soldiers and Communist Party activists murdering millions of unarmed and innocent peasants in Ukraine by shooting and mass starvation.
When Hobsbawm says ?We didn?t know that?, one has to ask when he did finally know THAT, that being the real nature of the totalitarian Soviet Union and its imitators. Why did Lenin create the most brutal and long-lasting system of censorship in the twentieth century? What was Hobsbawm?s reaction to the news of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)? What did he make of the publication of Doktor Zhivago? Why did the Red Army invade and rape Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and threaten to invade Poland in 1981? What did he make of Solzhenitsyn, the Truth Teller? Why did the Soviet state kill and imprison writers? Why did the KGB arrest the manuscript of Vasilii Grossman?s Life and Fate? Why did Stalin judicially murder some of his most talented army commanders at the moment when the threat posed by National-Socialist Germany was all too clear? How does Hobsbawm explain and justify Order № 00447? When did he realise that the massacre of 21,857 Polish prisoners at Katyn and other sites in 1940 was a Soviet crime not a Nazi one? When did he finally accept that the full scale of the Ukrainian genocide, the Holodomor, with its 6,000,000 dead from genocide by starvation and another 5,000,000 dead from cold, disease and shooting? Does Hobsbawm even accept that the Holodomor took place? Or is he a Holodomor-denier?

Hobsbawm says that his continuing membership of the Communist Party is a Cold War question and is irrelevant. This is a self-serving, cowardly evasion and Hobsbawm knows it. If a 95 year old former member of the National Socialist German Workers? Party was asked about his continuing loyalty to National Socialism would Hobsbawm be satisfied with an answer along the lines that ?this is a WWII question and is irrelevant?? Thousands of questions that historians ask about the Soviet regime are Cold War questions: are they irrelevant as well? Recall Hobsbawm?s views on chronology: ?without chronology there can be no history?. That is true of an individual as well and in a BBC programme dedicated to a ?life in history?, questions about Hobsbawm?s membership of the most genocidal political institution in man?s history are utterly relevant.

There is another Cold War question that requires an answer: was Hobsbawm ever recruited by any Eastern European intelligence agency, say, the KGB or Stasi, with the aim of spying on academics and students known to be hostile to socialism? Hobsbawm could remove all doubt and speculation by stating unequivocally that he was not recruited by any Soviet bloc intelligence agency and that he never provided any information to any intelligence agency. Hobsbawm should also ask himself whether an academic, let us say the existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, who remained a committed National Socialist until his death in 1976, would have found employment in a British university. Hobsbawm?s continuing belief in Marxism in 2012 reflects a state of mind that, despite all the earlier, reasonable talk about evidence and reason, is one that is demonstrably impervious to evidence and reason: the hallmark of the true revolutionary-believer slave.
Hobsbawm?s position on Soviet genocide is nauseating and hypocritical even by the standards of British academics that played down Stalin?s crimes. Why does Schama not press the case about genocide committed in the name of communism to the point of destruction? In fact, a more aggressive and less easily deflected interviewer than Lawley could easily have brought about Hobsbawm?s psychological collapse on air. Hobsbawm sounded very close to breaking: he knows that Marxism is repulsive and he knows that for all his adopting the pose of the learned academic that his support of Marxism and his failure to acknowledge the full scope of communism?s hideous crimes against humanity, far worse than anything committed by the Nazis, is disgusting, cowardly and immoral. There is no difference between the person that denies National-Socialist crimes against Jews, the Holocaust, and communist propagandists like Hobsbawm who deny the Holodomor and other crimes committed by communist regimes. Schama?s role here is also disgraceful and shameful since by failing to ask and to press home the forensic questions that should have been pressed home he allows Hobsbawm?s prevarication and mendacity to pass unchallenged.

A striking thing about this interview was the absence of any mention of the following names and events all of which are associated with communism: Lenin; Stalin; Pol Pot; Terror Famine; Great Terror; Show Trials; Gulag; Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Non-Aggression Pact) Katyn; Berlin Air Lift, Berlin Wall, 1984, The Captive Mind, Year Zero; Great Leap Forward; and Solzhenitsyn. Why did Schama fail to ask Hobsbawm about his reaction to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? The reason that Schama so conspicuously failed to mention any of these subjects was because any one of them would lead back to Hobsbawm?s fanatical commitment to Marxism and thus expose all his talk of commitment to reason and evidence as vile posturing. Hobsbawm?s response to people who press him about his communism is: ?The hell with you?: so much for reason then. One has to ask how a person who supported, and still believes in, communism and claims not to have known what was going on in the Soviet Union could always have been, in Schama?s words ?a clear-eyed analyst??

This interview reveals Hobsbawm to be morally and intellectually bankrupt. His attitude to the truth ? I do not recall his having used the word ?truth? at all throughout the interview ? and evidence shows that where the truth, evidence and reason get in the way of building the socialist paradise they will be slaughtered just as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot slaughtered millions to build their perverted and depraved socialist hells. This interview with Hobsbawm also reveals that the BBC is controlled by people who have totally internalised the Marxist worldview and who will do everything to suppress or to bypass the truth. Schama?s failure to ask the right questions, to speak out on behalf of the millions of people butchered in the name of socialism was as obscene as Hobsbawm?s pitiful attempts to deny the truth about communism.

To the extent that Hobsbawm was and remains a communist he must bear some individual responsibility for the carnage that overwhelmed Europe. His continued refusal to face up to the Satanic and bestial essence of communism should render him an object of contempt. That the BBC and the obsequious Simon Schama should beat a trail to this man?s door bears witness to the moral and intellectual debasement of the BBC. Listening to Hobsbawm I was more than once reminded of some of the intellectually and morally debased party creatures that appear in Grossman?s Life and Fate and Everything Flows. No matter how many millions are butchered, no matter how they themselves are treated by the party, no matter what policies the party pursues, no matter how many the party betrays its they will accept any act any judgement of the party provided that they can remain within its ranks. The true party member is a slave who lovingly polishes his chains. Parteigenosse Hobsbawm: Du bist zum Kotzen.
1. BBC Radio 4, 2000-2100hrs, 14th April 2012, Archive on 4, Hobsbawm: A Life in History.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: Still Chained to Communist Slavery - Dr Frank Ellis
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2013, 10:44:15 PM »
Vilfredo Pareto: A Non-Marxist Sociologist

Submitted by olivia on 7 March 2013 - 12:29am

Content on the Traditional Britain Blog and Library does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Traditional Britain Group
By David Hamilton
Sociology has long been dominated by Marxists and is not seen as a fair or objective discipline. However, there have been Conservative sociologists like Albert Hobbs and George Bourne. Hobbs wrote Man is a Moral Choice and Bourne, Change in the Village. The Conservative version of history is in Sir Keith Feiling. Reading the above helps us understand our own views. Apart from these few, academia is dominated by what is known as the Cultural Marxist ideology.
A sociologist who proposed alternative analyses to Marxism, and who had some very interesting insights into the nature of elites, was Vilfredo Pareto. He was first an economist known known for two economic concepts that were named after him. First, Pareto Optimality. A Pareto-optimal allocation of resources is when it is only possible to make someone better off by making someone else worse off.

Second was Pareto?s law of income distribution derived from British data on income which showed a linear relationship between each income level and the number of people who received more than that income. He found similar results for Prussia, Saxony, Paris, and some Italian cities. Pareto thought his law should be ?provisionally accepted as universal,? but realised that exceptions were possible. Since then many exceptions have been found.
He changed to sociology from economics. In later life he involved himself with Mussollini because of the political situation of that time, but in these days of tolerance and open mindedness we can look at different views and make our own minds up.

His work on elites is of great interest and a more concrete view than Marxism as it examines human nature rather than constructing abstract ideology. ?The circulation of the elites? examines differences in the temper and style of the rulers. His most profoundest insights are Lions and Foxes which give a better understanding into how we are ruled and misruled. They are grounded in how people behave rather than vague and dated abstractions about class behaviour.
Why do things not stay the same?
Modernist art critic Herbert Read wrote in ?Form in Modern Poetry" (1932) that the nature of men had changed from character to personality. Character being permanent, solid traits; personality more fluid and changeable.
 Why are we decadent and longer capable of defending ourselves?

Pareto suggests that there is a ?Circulation of Elites.? The ruling elites are not a stable ruling class but changing. He thought this circulation occurs because each type has inherent weaknesses. Thus whilst the Lions' act forcefully they lack imagination and cunning; conversely, Foxes possess cunning but fail to act coercively. Examples are the police negotiating for too long instead of shooting the criminals, kidnappers etc. Pareto disputed that democracy was a progressive form of government; it was, he said, another form of elite rule. A topical insight was that foxes often ignore invasions until it is too late. We should know. We are living through one!
Those who come to power promote their own kind and demote those who are different until one type dominates. A professed support for the dominant ideology is necessary to retain one's social position and transgressions are usually rewarded with demotion and infamy. Ideology correctness is crucial to whether individuals have influence or are removed from power and I call this dominant group an ?ideological caste?.
Pareto believed that in all societies including Democracies, there is a class that rules and a class that is ruled. On weak rulers he wrote: "Any elite which is not prepared to join in battle to defend its position is in full decadence, and all that is left to it is to give way to another elite having the virile qualities it lacks. It is pure day-dreaming to imagine that the humanitarian principles it may have proclaimed will be applied to it. The knife of the guillotine was being sharpened in the shadows when, at the end of the eighteenth century, the ruling classes in France were engrossed in developing their "sensibility." It is similar now with girly-men running Western countries.
Lions and Foxes
He explicated the two types of ruler - ?Lions and Foxes.? This originated in Machiavelli?s ?The Prince?. Machiavelli was formulating a rationalist plan of ?how to rule? for new rulers who had no tradition to guide them. He advised the new ruler to be half beast and half man: ?So, as a Prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he should learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenceless against traps and a fox is defenceless against wolves. Therefore one must be a fox in order to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves.?
 The Lions have what Pareto termed Class 11 residues of ?Group Persistence?. They have a sense of objectivity and permanence and believe in family, property, nation, church, and tradition. They are cautious in economics and value saving and ?sound money.? They esteem character and duty over education and wealth and will use force to uphold their values. They rely on their strength, stubbornness.
 Foxes, tend to work in the talking professions like journalism or the law, and live by their wits, shrewdness, deceit and fraud.
Pareto's Residues
There are six classes of Residues but the first two are relevant to our time. Class 1 residue is the foxes? instinct for ?combination?. They tend to manipulate words and construct abstruse theories and ideologies. They do not have strong attachment to church, family, nation or tradition but can exploit these loyalties in others. They are creative in economics and politics and promote change and novelty. They do not plan far ahead and do not look to a great future for their people. They rely on their wits to thwart challenges and ad lib answers to questions.
Pareto made a distinction between changing elements accounting for these theories, which he termed derivations, and residual, relatively permanent elements, which he termed residues. The notion of residues is often misunderstood and he meant manifestations of sentiments or as corresponding to them rather than as their equivalents. They are intermediary between the sentiments we cannot know directly and the belief systems and acts that can be known and analysed. They are related to man's instincts but they do not cover all of them, since we can only discover those instincts that give rise to rationalisation in theories - others are hidden.
A feature of Foxes is their distaste for the Martial and a preference for Economics. Our defences are severely cut back and the elites act as if we are in a safe world and have no enemies and think they can buy other countries off with overseas aid and good will!

A Survey of Political Change Over the Last Two Centuries
This clarifies the effect of elites changing from Lions to Foxes has had on our lives and the standing of our nation. The dominant anti-British tendency and favouritism for ?the other? can be traced to well-named Charles James Fox and his type down to the present. He exhibited the Fox's tendency for abstractions and high-sounding ideals which is evident from his support for the principles of the French Revolution while ignoring the reality. He regarded our war with France as an attempt to crush a noble experiment in human liberty. In 1786 he said of the Rohilla charge, "by those laws which are to be found in Europe, Africa, and Asia ? that are found among all mankind, those principles of Equity and humanity implanted in our hearts which have their existence in the feelings of mankind ?"
The radical MP Samuel Whitbread was even more anti-British than Fox and excused the French while denouncing his own people. It was the dawning of our era when abstractions were coming to dominate and practical thinking was losing ground. Heroes like Nelson and Wellington were still at that time ?role models? for young men, for their quiet manly courage, selflessness and high sense of duty. On the French Revolution Edmund Burke foresaw the decline of Lions? values: ?It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that charity of honour, which felt stain like a wound?The age of chivalry is gone. The age of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded.?
The Duke of Wellington was a famous lion. Like Churchill, Wellington had been uninterested in education as a schoolboy. Military types are not so interested in ideas and accepting theories. He was at the Congress of Vienna when Napoleon returned from Elba but sent to command the Allied armies in the Netherlands, where he cooperated with the Prussian general, von Bl?cher. Wellington was surprised by Marshal Ney at Quatre Bras and fell back on Waterloo, where he held on until Bl?cher came to his aid after the Prussian defeat at Ligny. Wellington won one of the most decisive battles in history at Waterloo. He was respected by his troops, who admired his composure under fire and his successes were due to his study of war, careful planning including supply, and realism.

He was defeated by Foxes Cobden and Bright who promoted free trade to bring about world peace. In 1846, the year the Corn Laws were repealed, Cobden said: "I believe that the physical gain will be the smallest gain to humanity from the success of this principle. I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe ? drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace."
Victorian historian James Anthony Froude lamented that we had chosen economics over duty. Foxes were taking over from lions and this can be traced through the century as economics replaced values like ?nobility?, ?duty? and ?honour?.
 It was Disraeli who turned the Conservatives into an opportunistic party from one of tradition. Disraeli was apparently determined to obtain independent means, and speculated on the stock exchange as early as 1824 on various South American mining companies. He was a progressive Tory and sympathetic to some Chartists' demands and argued for an alliance between the landed aristocracy and the working class against the increasing power of the middle class.

He was a founder of the Young England group in 1842 to promote the view that the rich should use their power to protect the poor from exploitation by the middle class. During the twenty years which separated the Corn Laws and the Second Reform Bill, Disraeli sought Tory-Radical alliances - though unsuccessfully.
His rival Gladstone, a Fox, was opposed to General Gordon, and tarried while he was murdered in Khartoum. Gordon expressed the values of Lions in his journal about ?honour to his country?. The man who re-took Khartoum, Lord Kitchener, was worshipped by the public but attacked in the Commons as a ?butcher? and ?Imperialist? by Foxes. He was pushed out of the War Cabinet by Fox Lloyd George who formed the War Committee, which had dictatorial powers and took over the running of the war. A reformer, Lloyd George also out-manoeuvred and replaced General Sir William Robertson, Chief of the Imperial Staff with one of his own kind, Sir Henry Wilson, who wrote more of the balls he attended and the dignitaries he met than anything honourable or noble. Robertson was forced to resign on 11 February 1918, taking the lesser role of Commander-in-Chief of the British Home Forces (replacing Sir John French). Wilson had connived with Lloyd George to create the Supreme War Council which Robertson had vociferously opposed.
Robertson is the only man in history to rise to Field Marshall from private. A staunch supporter of Sir Douglas Haig, Robertson acted to prevent Lloyd George's attempts to divert effort from the Western to the Eastern Front; unlike Lloyd George, Robertson was a keen 'Westerner', believing that the war could only be won on the Western Front.
 In his book Soldiers and Statesman 1914 ?1916 (1926) Robertson repeatedly stresses ?duty?. He highlighted the anti-military bias of Foxes when he wrote of how Lloyd George and his war cabinet took a private house to seclude themselves from the Generals, ?where they sit twice a day and occupy their whole time with military policy, which is my job; a little body of politicians quite ignorant of war and all its needs, are trying to run the war themselves.?
Stanley Baldwin turned the Conservative party from imperialism to offering inducements to voters such as ?houses? and ?prosperity?. A century of disarmament, on both sides of the Commons, when old Tories spent their time preaching appeasement and dozing in London clubs while Socialists had fantasies about internationalism, disarmament, and submitting to the League of Nations when we were the most powerful country ? left us weak and nearly defenceless.

Before being removed or neutralised, Lions are first ?Stigmatised?. The Lion Churchill spent a decade in slandered obscurity as a ?Warmonger? before being needed to fend off Wolves. A Lion called Enoch was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet by arch-Fox Heath, who has since admitted misleading Parliament and thus the people into the federal state of Europe, which he lied to the country and Parliament was merely a trading arrangement. (2)
Fox John Major deceived us when he pretended that we retained control over our borders after his legal advisers had advised him that they had been signed away at Maastricht.
 We have constant moral outrages such as Blair?s infamous sending our troops to war on a lie and his habitual lying to the population. Michael Howard campaigned for election on immigration control when he knew that the European Union would not allow him to implement his plans even had he meant to do so. In June 2004 it was revealed he is an investor in communications firm Incepta. A subsidiary company Citigate Lloyd Northover won two Home Office contracts to develop Websites and communications technology to speed up applications from immigrants to enter the UK. The company also gained from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website for the Government to facilitate admission and settling of asylum seekers.
The Western world has deteriorated even more to our time. Pareto wrote:
"The plutocracy has invented countless makeshift programs, such as generating enormous public debt that plutocrats know they will never be able to repay, levies on capital, taxes which exhaust the incomes of those who do not speculate... The principal goal of each of these measures is to deceive the multitudes."
When a society's system of values deteriorates to the point where hard work is denigrated and "easy money" extolled, where authority gives way to anarchy and justice to legal chicanery, such a society stands face to face with ruin.?
It is a specific trait of weak governments. Among the causes of the weakness two especially are to be noted: humanitarianism and cowardice - the cowardice that comes natural to decadent aristocracies and is in part natural, in part calculated, in "speculator" governments that are primarily concerned with material gain. The humanitarian spirit ... is a malady peculiar to spineless individuals who are richly endowed with certain Class I residues that they have dressed up in sentimental garb."
Cultural Marxists like university educated chief police officers because they are open to Politically Correct ideas and willing to enforce the Cultural Marxist agenda through the police.
 The sort of people who should be appointed chief police officers as they understand human nature and how to curb its excesses are former military officers. In his autobiography Cloak Without a Dagger former Sheffield chief constable, Captain Sir Percy Sillitoe, gave this insight into human nature: ?There is only one way to deal with the gangster mentality. You must show that you are not afraid. If you stand up to them and they realise you mean business they will knuckle under. The element of beast in man whether it comes from an unhappy and impoverished background, or from his own undisciplined lustful appetites, will respond exactly as a wild beast of the jungle responds ? to nothing but greater force and greater firmness of purpose.?
(1) The Triumph of the Political Class. Peter Oborne (Pocket Books) 2008
 For corruption and deceit in the global media

710609 Soames Despatch

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk