The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher

Reason TV present John Blundell and the legacy of The Iron Lady:

View in a pod "The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher", posted with vodpod
More on John Blundell's biography of Margaret Thatcher.

The Conservative Moral Capitalist March

The official website ... make it happen!

Credit Crunch Critical for Survival of Capitalism

Who needed further proof that the current notions about the political spectrum are a myth, here it is. The financial crisis is interesting in that is leads to political players reverting to their default attitudes towards individual freedom and the role of the state. In French President Nicolas Sarkozy we find a prime example. Be prepared for the shake-out to produce more revealing knee-jerks in the coming weeks and months.

At the root of the false spectrum is the public relations stunt that was sprung by the Left after World War II with the annihilation of the ultra Right, in the defeat of National Socialist Germany. Myth-making, PR stunt, are two ways of putting it; another is defining it as 'actively altering the perception of reality'. (Only this has to be done artfully and in a coordinated fashion; not like some amateurs who are currently trying to paint Sarah Palin simultaneously as the hot and gullible hayseed, Ellie Mae in a postmodern rendition of the sixties TV series The Beverley Hillbillies, and as a gun-toting, Bible-thumbing, reincarnation of the Puritan niece of Oliver Cromwell - all at the same time.)

That aside, the dialectic myth sprung on us was that on the Left we have the humane, altruistic Socialists, whereas the Right consists entirely of vile egoistic Capitalists preying on the good hearts of the poor masses. In this dichotomy we find in Adolf Hitler the arch Wall Street Capital C Capitalist of all time; and 'third way' small l liberals as a compromise between the two polar systems, somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. There is obviously something wrong with this skewed picture.

Both Left and Right are two branch departments of the same collectivist school of thought, that demands the individual to subordinate to the collective body (group, state, race, social class, nation, etc.). Although they often subscribe to the oxymoron of regulated free-market capitalism - neutrally described as 'best practice' - a majority of European Christian Democrats are at core of that ilk. The same is true of American paleo conservatives. Which stands to reason, because the structure of collectivism is religious thought stripped from the finer theological ethics, and God replaced by whatever was taken to animate and embody the collective. This is why these ideologies often take the shape of pseudo religions, rather than political systems.

Without going at this time in to the core fallacy lurking on the bottom of this Kantian/Hegelian pond (we have done that in these pages more often than we care to remember) - this world view on the political level translates into statism, collectivism and anti-capitalism; in variations and intensity it is also suspicious, critical or downright hostile towards reason, science and technology. It is in effect directly opposed to modern thinking. Philosopher and historian Isaiah Berlin coined the term, the Counter-Enlightenment.

Capitalism and free-markets are the political and economical consequences of the ethics of individual Free Will, the use of reason as the source of knowledge, and the assurance that the universe is knowable. The USA is the only country founded on these basic philosophical principles, democracy is the social translation. This Postmodern cartoon shows it is precisely that which anti-modernism opposes.

Let me at this point take the opportunity to clarify the European versus the American alignments. There are European Libertarians seriously misaligning, declaring for the crypto Socialist Obama and the severely radicalized Democratic Party, unaware that the defenders of free-markets are located at the Republican side of the aisle.

Reverting to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, even though without doubt a true philamerican, the Financial Times article "Sarkozy sets out bigger state role" is evidence that he remains at heart a statist (Gaullist) with a thin veneer of Liberalism which is shed at the first sign the principles are called upon. While singing the praises of Capitalism, he's calling for the chutzpah that is European 'self-regulation,' to be jettisoned in favor of outright state-regulation.

The coming months are critical. The crisis offers an opportunity to those who had to swallow and gag back free market capitalism for the sake of 'best practice', but who remained emotionally as well as culturally collectivist thinkers. Old ideals may well be revived. Bets are on for who'll be the first to drop the n word of nationalization into the discourse.

These true believers do not want to know that it's their own interventionism that caused the markets to fail, and when they did, it's the markets that were at fault (read "Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess" and Carpe Diem: "Flashback to the 1990s: Origins of the Credit Crisis" by Dr. Mark J. Perry). Before anything else, this circular, truly banal argument needs falsefying.

- Cartoon by Michael Ramirez -

The current credit crunch will be used as an excuse to unleash a whole new generation of big government regulation on to the free world, putting it in retrograde as it is digging in. Of all the markers required for global Fascism we come up short but one or two ... nothing a protracted recession can't cure (posting will follow shortly). We can even venture a guess what the neotot system will be called: New Capitalism, or alternatively True Capitalism, entirely Islamic banking compatible.

Already the drones are buzzing that "this is obviously the end of capitalism as we know it--it doesn't work". The coming weeks and months will see defining moments in the unrolling of our future in which Hegel's 'world historical figures' will play their part: the ethics of the Enlightenment versus the next failed attempt at Building the Collective Utopia (after over 110 million deaths, this time they'll get it right ... for our own good, of course).

- Update - Yahoo!UK & Ireland: "Government to nationalise Bradford & Bingley" -

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" and "The Economic and Monetary Dossier" -

Check Out This Little Gem

Objectivists, language and culture lovers, history buffs, Classicists and Libertarians of the world, check out this little gem: Rusty Mason.com Other News & Association Sites.

I don't mean the blogs that are listed. It lays bare the confusion in Conservative political alignment today. Whereas all that wasn't coveted by the Left was hitherto derogatively termed 'Right-wing', the new broad, generic epithet today appears to be 'Conservative.'

We have to work on that: Paleo Conservatism, harking back to pre-revolutionary times, doesn't gel with the Enlightenment modernism of Libertarianism - let alone the anti-modern, Hegel inspired ideologies of Nationalism and (neo) National Socialism!

I actually mean the site's language pages, listed on the top left-hand side. Delve and enjoy!

State vs Nation: Migration and Racism

In this article, I'm trying to distinguish the notions of "Nation" and "State" and show how the second one stole the first. I'll take a concrete example, the problem of immigration.

The article is inspired by Pascal Salin. You can find his outstanding writings at "Le Québécois Libre" (however, only in French ...).

Before exposing the core of the problem, there is a parenthesis to open. As I was about to write this - being a Frenchie - I had to check in the dictionary for the translation of the word "étatiser", which means "decide that a "private" matter becomes a "public" matter, ruled by the State." What a surprise! In English, "étatiser" is translated "to nationalize"! THIS WORD IS FALSE!!! State and Nation have to be opposed. So in this article, I'll create a word for "étatiser": STATALIZE.

Let's try to explain. A free society is a society in which every individual has the right to do whatever he wants to, provided that it respects the legitimate rights of the other individuals. Ergo, a free society is based on the acknowledgment and defense of property rights.

This libertarian vision is based on a realistic perception of the human being. The collectivist detractors insist that the libertarian theory conceives human beings as lonely particles, hostile to one another but it's truly the opposite: the libertarian individual is fundamentally a social being.

Indeed every human being belongs to societies, big or small, and he has the feeling to be part of these groups. The Nation is such a groups, the largest one. Nation represents combined social ties born in history and revealed through culture, language and religion. Nation comes under spontaneous order, it is multiform, evolutionary and difficult to grasp. It's the result of multiple perceptions, somewhat different among members.

That is why it is a mistake to assimilate Nation to State which is, on the contrary, a very precise and institutionalized reality. And it's pretty striking to observe that today, just as in the triumphant statism era, we see once again the rise of nationalism. That is proof that States forced the creation of social systems, and not Nation as perceived by citizens--to whom they allowed themselves to give this name. And of course the State exerted all its energy in convincing people that nationalists are all somewhat Nazistic ...

I insist that Nation results from a feeling of belonging to a community, and that is why the "State-Nation" is a lie: it is not possible to statalize feelings. Then as always, when statalization occurs the State creates a monopoly for itself and defends it. And so it fights against regional particularisms; State destroys spontaneous Nations.

As an example, the struggle in France to destroy regional languages in the name of the republican equality in the 19th Century. That is followed by the most perverse move: in order to deceive you, STATE IS PERSONIFIED to ease the assimilation of Nation to State.

So they say: "Germany decides to..." or "France exports..." In the first case, they make you think that the entire German population decides, as if some type of collective mind did exist. In the second case, they make you believe that export is a collective act, that it's a common interest and that ergo State is able to determine it. LIES! Germany doesn't decide; the German government decides. France doesn't export; some French producers do.

- Caption: the 85 m/279 feet tall statue of Mother Motherland commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad in Volgograd, Russia -

This shows that a mythic, collective interest does not in fact exist, but that some particular interests do: those of the ones who are holding power or the ones who are producing goods. The use of these abstractions has a well defined goal: to abuse you. To make you think that Nation is assimilated into State; even that Nation is a property of State which ergo reserves the right to manage the national territory.

From there emanates the myth of "public property". The intellectual legitimation of "public property" consists in saying that State can "produce" some goods and services in an optimal way, while private companies can't. ANOTHER LIE.

Let's consider the immigration problem. The starting point of a libertarian reasoning about immigration would be to say that immigration (as emigration) is a fundamental right of a human being. How can you advocate the free exchange of goods and oppose free movement of human beings? Thus the best immigration policy would be not to have one at all!

Let's compare free trade with immigration. How can we define the free exchange of goods? Free trade simply means that public power should not use its monopoly to hinder the trade, wanted by both partners. So free immigration doesn't mean that an individual has the right to move wherever he wants, but that he has the right to move wherever he's welcome. In a private property system individual rights are conditional: you may enter someone else's property if you're welcome and respect the rules established by the owner.

In such a system, a free exchange one, both immigrants and inhabitants of the welcoming Nation should benefit from the deal. Otherwise there should be no immigration. If immigration is allowed and accepted, it's because there's a win-win situation.

In a collectivist system (our States) - with the notion of public property/public services - the situation isn't so fair. Because the public goods are produced in a collective way, they have a hidden cost. And so, these goods/services are for free or are inexpensive: it's financed through taxes, the productive citizens paying a high price, the less productive ones paying little or zip.

This is why the State induces bad immigration: it becomes advantageous for unproductive immigrants to come and benefit of all the services that are free or almost free, while contributing as little as possible; whereas potential productive immigrants are less enthusiastic: they know they'll pay too much through taxes for what they get in services.

Lets take an example, California vs Texas. An article in The Wall Street Journal in 1993 explained why immigration from Mexico was three times higher in California than in Texas, while the Texas-Mexico border is far longer than the one separating California from Mexico. It's because the social security system in California is much more developed than it is in Texas. As stated by an immigration official in Texas: "It's impossible to live from welfare here".

In the actual situation where the immigration policies are defined for the Nation by the State - I mean where social policies tend to subsidize the immigration of the less productive people - some who favor immigration as we know it, claiming their generosity through speeches against racism, are not touched by the problem; whereas others, who see their environment degraded by this system are opposed to it, seek help through the State to solve their social problems--a waste of time.

So the State is creating RACISM. What can we expect? The people leading the State are pretty comfortable come election day: all these assisted men who came in and got their voting rights will vote for them to perpetuate the system; whereas they don't have to worry too much if productive citizens get fed up and leave the country for a less unfair one: after all, they would have voted against them!

Immigration is not the problem. THE PROBLEM IS THE STATE. We, the people, citizens, have to find a way to recapture what it has stolen from us, the Nation, our Freedom, control over our Fate!

Here it is, only a short introduction about a matter I value very much. And the subject is worth further in-depth development.

- Filed on Articles in "The Post Democratic Preferences of the Neotots", cat. Neo Totalitarianism