Janet Daley Hits Nail On The Head

It appears that Janet is on the verge of a major revelation.

The globalist Free Market Capitalists are the Neo-Conservatives whilst the Globalist World Government Fabians are the Neo-Trotskyites.

Both despise nationalism.

The Neo-Cons devastated the global economy in order to pave the way for the Neo-Trots.

The answer is a return to nationalist economics = BRITAIN FIRST - if we are to recover, not Marxist Globalism instead of Capitalist Globalism.



When Barack Obama and Gordon Brown see 'opportunity', we really do have a crisis
The Left is threatening our freedom by using the downturn to bolster the power of the state, says Janet Daley.

Last Updated: 7:37PM GMT 08 Mar 2009

Comments 4 | Comment on this article

The story so far: some capitalists behaved very badly. While this was going on, the socialists didn't ask questions because they were too busy spending the receipts that flowed from that behaviour. Now, the socialists – who were happy to look the other way during the good times or even to delude themselves into thinking that they were responsible for them – want to use the ignominy of the capitalists to seize the kind of power they thought they had lost forever.

You may quibble at my use of the word "socialist" to describe people who generally present themselves as friends of the free market, and who have repudiated full-scale nationalisation (even of the banks at a moment when that option might have appeared irresistible). So, as someone who spent her formative years on the Left, let me make clear that I am using the word to designate those who accept the primary tenet of Marxist ideology: that the economy can and should be controlled by the state.

In the hard version of this creed, it is acceptable for government to become totalitarian in order to accomplish such control. The softer version – which prevailed in much of Western Europe and Britain – was committed to achieving this through democratic means. By the end of the 1980s, the hard version had collapsed and the soft version was discredited.

Then, suddenly – a miracle! Free-market economics, which seemed to have won the historical argument hands down, is imploding. Now the very people who had embraced it as, at the very least, a milch cow for public-spending adventurism, can see an "opportunity". Yes, that is the word that both Gordon Brown and Barack Obama have taken to using to describe the current economic apocalypse.

In Gordon Brown's fantasy, this is an "opportunity" to exercise control over the whole world. Not just stricter regulation by national governments of their own economic institutions, but a wondrous new level of international regulation by supranational functionaries – to be appointed by whom? A World Government agency accountable to no electorate and with no democratic mandate from the populations over whom it will wield such power? Trotskyists used to say that Stalinist Russia had failed to achieve Utopia because it had embraced "socialism in one country" rather than going for "world revolution". Now, we are being told that Labour's market-led social justice programme failed because it opted for "regulation in one country" instead of understanding the need for "world regulation".

Maybe being an ex-Marxist is a bit like being a lapsed Catholic: you never quite get rid of the old thought patterns.

In the more overheated renditions of the Brown theme, there is talk of a "global vision for fairness", in which the very poverty that is being visited upon all the developed economies will somehow make it possible to redistribute wealth to the developing world.

Is he quite mad? Does he actually believe that the economic failure of rich countries will do anything but impoverish poor countries even further? Or that the moral righteousness of the intention to cure world poverty will, in itself, constitute some kind of cure for the banking collapse?

Meanwhile, Mr Obama – who gives the impression of being considerably out of his depth in the economic maelstrom – talks of an "opportunity" to "reorganise our priorities". He gave a major speech last week in which he actually seemed to suggest that the present crisis had been caused by America's failure to develop a universal health care system and to attend to the impending environmental disaster of global warming ("we made the wrong choices"), and that by focusing on these matters a way can be found out of the country's economic problems.

Is he quite mad? Does he really believe that the banking crisis and the recession were some kind of divine retribution for the absence of universal health care, and excessive carbon emissions? Or is he suggesting that a practical solution lies in spending money on health care and the development of alternative energy sources?

If it is the latter, then he is making a pitch for old-fashioned Roosevelt-style government-expenditure programmes which take money out of the productive part of the economy and bring state intervention into play in new dimensions of national life. It did not work for Roosevelt and it will not work now.

But maybe sentimental mythology matters more than historical reality: what Obama and Brown are both trying to do is to put themselves on the benevolent, morally attractive side of the argument by saying: we – your government – will act, intervene, take positive steps to help you. We will not stand by and let the hurricane winds of the economy blow you down. (Mr Brown has actually used the word "hurricane" to describe the crisis, as if it were a natural disaster which no one could have prevented.)

What neither the Prime Minister nor the President can admit is what is becoming more obvious every day (and which has been admitted by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key): there is precious little that any politician can do to resolve the present economic problems. The values of assets and property are simply going to have to fall from the grossly inflated points they reached under the debt bubble to what are generally accepted to be realistic levels. Then people will start to do business again – as eventually they must – and confidence will gradually return.

So are these politicians pretending that they have answers out of wilful deceit – out of the need to keep playing the game for partisan advantage? Or are they simply attempting to maintain some degree of public optimism about the future? (After all, an "opportunity" sounds better than a "debacle".)

Well, I grew up with the Left and what this looks like to me is a power grab: a seizing of the moment by the forces which always believed in state domination. The Left sees an opening here, first for telling a critical lie about the historical origins of this crisis, which was propelled as much by the Left-liberal determination to spread prosperity through easy credit to the poor, as by the greed of bankers. And then, out of the wreckage, to restructure the economy along the lines that it always wanted, complete with central controls over the pay levels in private financial institutions.

We are being led to believe that public debate should be all about economic mechanics when it should really be about political principle: just how many freedoms do we want to lose while governments pretend that they are the solution?

Genes and Culture and the New Zionists

The recent events with Robert Spencer have awakened me to an issue that has had very little attention, this being The New Zionism.

Unilke the old style of Zionism, which was an aspiration of the Jewish peoples of the world for a national Jewish homeland, the New Zionism is neither Jewish nor nationalist.

It is based on the eschatology of the Christian Fundamentalists and concerns a theological climax where the risen Christ will return and either convert the Jews of Israel to Christianity or slaughter them all.

In America the political system is dominated by two blocs, this being the pro-Israel lobby groups and the Christian Fundamentalist lobby groups. Both wield vast power and it was their influence which allowed George Bush to wage his neo-conservative war for oil with their support (and also to appease the rising Third power and lobby bloc in the US which is Saudi Arabian economic bloc which supplies the US with its oil and which funds both Republican and democratc political campaigns and organisations linked to candidates in those elections).

Whilst the Christian Fundamnentalists whipped up public support for the war, the Jewish pro-Israel lobby used their power and influence in the media to propagandise the war in the US media. Whilst the left like to demonise George Bush, they remain silent about the role the pro-Israel media and Christian Fundamentalists had in acting as the 'drummers' for the War In Iraq.

The funny thing about the New Zionists is that the Jewish community in the US, which has always been mainly leftist in attitude, is now in a large part firmly anti-Zionist, same as in the United Kingdom.

It is only the non-Jewish, Christian Fundamentalists and Neo-Conservatives who are the main supporters of Israel.

This brings us neatly to the issue of race and culture. The Bush adminstration invaded Iraq as the Neo-Conservatives believe that they can export democracy to the world and this idea is the basis of their global project to 'fight the war on terror and democratise the Middle East'.

The flaw in this is quite clear and the example of the Jewish people is an apt lesson. Wherever in the world the Jewish people have lived throughout history they have retained their identity, heritage and culture. They have lived in many, many nations and always remained Jewish both in terms of identity and culture. Once Israel was created it became naturally a jewish state with a Jewish identity and Jewish cultures. The 'democracy' of Israel was built by Ashkenazi jews of mixed European and Jewish blood and culture. Therefore democracy took root in Israel as it was rooted in the genes of the people that built Israel.

The same thing happened when the British Empire was built as the British emigrants re-created their own British culture in foreign lands they settled in. The Irish did it in America as did the Italians, the Koreans etc.

Wherever a racial group with a specific culture settle, the re-create their own culture again.

This brings us to the idea that democracy can be exported to the Middle East.

Democracy is a European creation rooted in the genes of Europeans. The Neo-Conservative idea that it can be exported is based on an assumption that genes and culture are not linked in any way which has been proved throughout history to be a baseless theory.

Therefore the Neo-Conservative project will fail.

Seeing as the ideological guru of the Neo-Conservatives was Leo Strauss, a Jewish emigre to the US, then the neo-cons of the Bush administration must have been aware that the propaganda about 'exporting democracy' was bogus as the very fact that their guru retained his Jewishness when he came to America was direct proof that race, genes and culture are linked.

Strauss was Jewish in Germany both in terms of his self identifcation of himself as Jewish both by blood and culture, and also Jewish in America both in terms of his self identification of himself as Jewish by blood and culture.

Therefore the idea that genes and culture are not linked was bogus from the beginning.

Transplant the individual and you also transplant with them their culture.

Even the Communist experiment in China and Russia could not erase this inbuilt genetic and cultural wiring in individuals. The Communists spent 70 years using the communist jackboot, gulags, Laogai and machine guns to erase all knowledge of genes and culture in the people they conquered (The Lamarkian genetic theory was itself an attempt to disengage genes and culture with an nurture not nature theory of human development) and they failed.

The Communists prohibited all forms of ancestral identity, brainwashed the masses from birth with communist theory and created a monolithic Communist culture to replace ethno-specific cultures and national identities.

A 100 million dissidents were slaughterd in order to ensure that all notions of identity and culture were eradicated.

Yet as soon as the Communist regimes in Europe collapsed, the ancestral identities of those peoples and their ancestral cultures sprang forth once more.

Old national identities were reclaimed, ancestral cultures recreated and the old hatreds between them all were rekindled.

If the Communists with their gulags, mass killings and brainwashing could not destroy the link between genes and culture then what idiot in the Bush adminstration thought they could !!!!

People such as Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch are guilty of the most disgusting disingenousness when they say that genes and culture are not linked and that universal human rights must replace the reality of genes and cultures.

They are either idiots or liars.

Robert Spencer is simply a neo-conservative tool of the New Zionists and the Pro-Israel bloc in the US.

Universalist values such as the concept of universal human rights translate eventually into a repressive universal world government, a universal global culture based on consumerism that will kill the eco-sphere of the planet, a universal economic system that destroys national control over internal social development and turns individual human beings into dehumanised abstract entities. Individuals become defined not by who they are, but simply by the collection of rights they are given, may possess and may claim. Government degenerates from the defence of nation, culture, environment and people into the defender of abstract rights whilst liberty becomes simply a collection of meanigless rights ( most of which are only able to be claimed via the legal system at vast expense which ensures only the rich have any real and meaningful rights ). National cultures become homogenised globalised consumer cultures where the values and culture of all nations converge to a mean that is neither freedom nor cultural in any way. National control over the economic system is denuded as the concept of 'economic justice' is linked with Globalism via the WTO and the UN etc and rampant destruction of the national environments of the planet destroys the planet.

But the fact is that this repressive system based on the theory of universal rights for all will fail, just as the Communists failed.

The Communist plan of 'Universal Brotherhood' of the Communist International was as asinine and insane as the Neo-Conservative plan for the democratisation of the planet. The Neo-Conservatives are truly the heirs of the Trotskyites.

In the real world the only universal truth is that genes and culture are linked and no amount of ideological nonsese, invasions, mass murders and plastic democracies will change that fact.

We are who we are and no ideology can change that.