Re: If Ron Paul Loses...


On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:50:33 +0100 'abelard'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:41:09 +0000, aracari
<spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:53:26 +0100 'abelard'

i can easily return to the comment that there is no seriously sane
comparison between hitler's national socialist heaven and
the present stage of uk and uk socialist idiocies....

True, but I fail to see the relevance of that because I have not
asserted that there is - yet.

then i can more easily move on....
the problem arose because you appeared to accept idiocy
from ukpm's resident attention seeker

so, move on....

My comments are simply pointing out that much of the free society
we've become accustomed to in the West 1945-2000 is not intrinsic
in our system but was part of the Cold War propaganda programme.

With the end of the Cold War, the propaganda is no longer needed
and we are now seeing our liberal societies being dismantled bit by
bit and replaced by quasi-police states, surveillance, monitoring,
abandoning of habeus corpus, political paranoia, centralisation of
power, ruling elites being above the law, fake official data,
draconian anti-liberty laws and lower wages etc. The list goes on.

i don't see much connection...but that's no big issue....

I do see it as a big issue because it helps to understand the true
nature of our own political and economic system. If my analysis
of what happened then and now is correct, it raises some very basic
questions of exactly what is its true nature - ie: was the Cold War
*really* a battle between nasty Communism -vs- free-wheeling liberal
democracy and capitalism as we are led to believe -or- was it simply
a battle between two competing authoritarian systems of fascism...

The Eastern one of state ownership -vs- our own one of corporate
ownership, with the corrupt political class on both sides being in
bed with the big money, exercising authoritarian control over their
populations, and disappearing those who dissent.

The connection I see is that during the Cold War the West was very
keen to portray itself to the East as the land of freedom, liberty
and all things nice and a model to aspire to. So we had all the cosy
liberal social policies, high wages, welfare systems, and all the
other things I mentioned earlier. The aim was clear: to create envy
and unrest in the East which the West saw as its major competing
ideology. One could liken it to two totalitarian systems fighting
for supremacy.

From the events in the last ~15 years, we can see that these things
were not systemic without our model, and are now being dismantled
bit by bit and replaced by state control mechanisms which have much
more in common with those used in the East during the Cold War.
We could call these changes in the West "The Rise of The State
Apparatchiks", who of course are organs of statism and we already
know that the East was infested with apparatchiks and jobsworths
during the Cold War, controlling everything and everybody. Now, we
are getting them too, albeit under the new name of *protecting our
freedom and security*. ho ho.

It's not too difficult to look ahead (say) 25 years in the West and
see that we are becoming exactly what we believed we spent 60yrs
trying to destroy, except of course today the political class are
using modern technology instead of pens/paper to maintain their
lists of refuseniks and dissidents, and they have some new PR labels
to throw around to appease those who might be frightened by it.

Notably today they are wearing Armani suits, not military uniforms.
How fashions change.....

When ID Cards become compulsory (TD is quite sure they will), how
long before a person's ID Card is de-activated by the state, thereby
placing him into Internal Exile? When did that term last get used?
Of course, the state will produce plausible reasons for using such
powers, but so did the despots in the East during the Cold War.

In essence there will be no difference in the intended effect ...
it will turn a person into a non-person, who is unable to function
in society because he has openly disagreed with the state over
something or other. Some will simply disappear into one of those
black holes with the label: 'terror suspect', where material
evidence is unnecessary to incarcerate someone for long periods.

As I've said many times before, fascism is on the march again.


Now, if I understand it, you believe that these changes are largely
a coincidence and due to changing social and economic requirements.

Obviously, I have serious doubts about that, especially given the
comments made to my German friend by a high ranking director
of Deutsche Bank when the Wall came down which I mentioned
earlier. What he predicted would happen, is happening.


Who would ever have thought in ~1990 that applicants for new
passports would be required to make an appointment to be questioned
and interrogated by some govt jobsworth, who then has the power to
refuse to issue it if they're not satisfied with your credentials?

imv these problems are arising from several systemic changes....

the end of large demands for chav work at economic wages
due to the ever advancing factory system....
the huge gains in the power (and therefore social danger) that
individuals can deploy....
the massive growth of human mobility....
the end of the fossil fuel economy....
all aggravated by huge population increase....

the outcome of all that is bound to be greater control of individuals.

I don't see many of those changes as requiring a need for greater
control over individuals.

especially while the idiotic 'equality' dogma is widespread.....


meanwhile you seem to have some pollyanna approach that we
can aspire to more 'freedom' while the tsunami of individualism
(as listed) runs out of control.....

I see no conflict between constitutional rights and laws which deal
with those who violate society's rules. I've never advocated anarchy
but I do believe that every new law must pass what I call
*the liberty test*.

you accept the growing individual power....the rest will/must follow..

so, what i'm asking you is where you would hope to break into the
real problems if you wish to disempower the social destroyers like
our very own mentally challenged clown

In Britain, I see an actively supervised written constitution as the
only known mechanism for halting the slide towards growing fascism.
The system of democratic govt would then operate *within* the
constraints of the constitution. So, my right to eat sausages could
never be banned by any govt because it would not come within their
remit to pass such laws.

I might add that it could set out a different system of electing a
govt which was more representative of the people and prevented the
nonsense we see today whereby NuLavatory govern with only 22% of
the eligible vote but see it as a mandate to do whatever they like.

In such a scenario I would see the military's prime domestic duty
would be to uphold the constitution on behalf of the citizenry. That
implies it would have the power to remove from office any Executive
which attempted to undermine or otherwise bypass the constitution.
That would itself imply that the supervisory board had some duty to
order the military into action as their constitutional policemen.

Going to war would be under Parliament's control, not the Executive.

It's noteworthy that none of our political parties even want to talk
about this whole issue, let alone put a plan in place to achieve it.
Turkeys and all that...


Many of these new features have more in common with the Eastern
Euro countries of the past, although I'd be the first to admit that
we have some way to go to equal them. That may just be a matter
of time if we continue down this road.

I do not see it automatically as a comparison with Hitler, more a
feature of the new capitalist statism - ie true Musso fascism, and
I have always likened Blair to Musso not Hitler.

that assertion is not irritating enuf to dispute...
although socialist musso was implicated in probably a million or
more deaths....but he was still no hitler....

but but but.....
as silly people continue to try to force such a silly equation.....
by referring to....well what exactly?...the need to prove you're
a genuine supplicant of the dole/clientalist state perhaps?

this position does not stand alone from the radical changes in
the meanwhile in wealth generated via the factory system....
where the real productivity of a hamburger slinger could
*never* meet the economic price of the labour productivity
of 200 workers and 10,000 robots in a car factory.....

in that growing factory system world...as in due course even the
hamburger slingers 'wage' (plus tax handouts) will change
as his 'job' is supplanted by ever improving robotisation....
obviously either his government handouts will increase or he will
starve or cars will be handed out as free gifts given a proper
nuclear power development.....

as your chav is unlikely to be disappeared even by the clown for at
least the next ten years....or even incarcerated for 3 years if he
kills a head master....

can you yet see my problems with the daft claim concerning national
socialist germany...

I have not likened the situation to Hitler.

see above....i'm happy to terminate that detail now....

for emphasis:
there have been radical and qualitative culture changing alterations
in society since the thirties....
the one i'm concerned with here is the *inability* of chavs to support
themselves economically....
this is a driver for clientalism.....

I am not even likening the problem to clientalism as you put it.

but it is clientalism that is driving much of the government
registration society....
though islamism is adding to the problems as is too many
chavs without civilised social places

Well, they are making the problem far worse by uncontrolled
immigration. I sometimes see their aim is to morph Britain into
the new Singapore, but none of that is for the benefit of the
population, only for greater GDP. We have to face the fact that
Britain is overloaded and there isn't enough work to go round.

I have never agreed with the term coined by Ken Clarke "UK Inc".
The UK is above all a nation of people, not corporations and it is
the peoples' needs which should take priority, not profit and GDP.
Obviously there's always a lot of give/take but what we see are
changes being foisted on us by people greedy for power and profit
and we are fed the platitude "it's good for Britain" ...but exactly
*who* in Britain? Not the population for sure.

if you take their dole away....what then?

Let them eat cake? ;-)

trite but not seriously to the point...
they'll burgulate you and otherwise irritate your comfort....

Laws.

they *are* dependents already.....i can see no obvious way you intend
to alter that dependency state....
it's no use saying they can have 'freedom' if they can't in fact
achieve 'freedoms' by any practical route....

your 'giving of freedom' in such a context amounts to a freedom to
starve....

where am i being unclear???????

Everywhere. I think I see where you're going

then i am no longer being unclear....
i am just not yet convincing you of the links

but I don't think that
work, as you like to focus on, is going to disappear anytime soon.

why else is government make work and the dole society growing apace

To create dependency on the state?
See comments w/r/t immigration - they can't have it both ways.

If anything we have a problem of excess uneducated population.

certainly....
but how do you propose to fix that while you are cursed with 'new'
labour...

I think we agree that Nulavatory are a complete disaster and unfit
to govern. I have to believe that there is an education formula
which produces people who are able to think and act responsibly.
Some of it is to do with poor parental upbringing because mothers
want to have kids *and* go back to work.

the problem is huge even if you put me in charge of education with
a bunch of ss enforcers!

abelard in an SS uniform. hhmmm

My points mentioned are really relevant to the issue of personal
freedoms and rights in society and these can exist alongside a
person living on the dole, as you put it.

not while the doleys and socialist labourites are allowed to burgulate
and mug the workers...
and i assert
that cohort will keep on increasing....

EG: a person's right to acquire a passport without undue state
interference does not have to be linked to whether he/she is
living on the state or not. You appear to think it does.

perhaps....at that level you have a point....
but the eussr are not ken on english yobs so we have the football
acts....

Sure, I have little problem with legal restraints being used to
control such yobs, although I think it might be better for the
receiving country to exercise such denials.

meanwhile you've let in a bunch of primitives with an uncertain
percentage of murderous lunatics....how will you handle that?

I have said before that under a written constitution, Britain could
be described as a Christian nation which operates under a legal
model. Where there is a conflict between racial models of legal
enforcement, the British one will always prevail. Thus, Sharia law
and no-go areas would not be permitted, but going to the mosque
would be. A balance of mutual respect would prevail. Moslems who
choose to live here would have to accept that.

responses solicited

regards....


--
Should Al Gore's wooden head be used as a carbon sink?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If Ron Paul Loses...
    ... It goes right to the heart of my desire for a written constitution, ... argue for wouldn't be as freedom loving as the one I'd argue for ... economic control over the general proletariat. ... and his bizarre sense of politics. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Freedom of Speech under the Constitution
    ... Freedom of Speech under the Constitution ... Every person has the constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. ... The law books are the only books a person must obey. ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
  • Freedom of Speech under the Constitution
    ... Freedom of Speech under the Constitution ... Every person has the constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. ... The law books are the only books a person must obey. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Freedom of Speech under the Constitution
    ... Freedom of Speech under the Constitution ... Every person has the constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. ... The law books are the only books a person must obey. ...
    (soc.culture.europe)
  • Freedom of Speech under the Constitution
    ... Freedom of Speech under the Constitution ... Every person has the constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. ... The law books are the only books a person must obey. ...
    (soc.culture.french)
Loading