Posted by: graemebird | January 30, 2010

The New World Order Communist Conspiracy (Is Far More Prosaic Than You Think)

People on the more sensible left may wish for international agreements on a range of issues, and may envision a world where private and public matters are separated in sensible ways for reasonable reasons. People with economic sophistication may have the personal judgement to be able to design, an in-theory, mixed economy, with some well-chosen welfare, partial but not utopian wealth redistribution, and A-grade infrastructure, so as to put the Hollanders and the Singaporeans to shame.

Now naturally I assume that some of you really hard leftists who read this forum are people with this sort of sophisticated understanding. Were it all up to you (and you know who you are) and you were in some sort of royal family, in some parallel universes’ royalist setup, then no doubt you might be able to make such a deal work.

Well you MIGHT be able to do it. If we could suspend Lord Acton’s dictum about power corrupting. If we could preserve the “you” as you are now.

In other words if we could separate technical economic theory from political life we could design a mixed economy, run slightly better than Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew. Slightly more egalitarian and slightly more economically effective, with less manipulation of the public and more political freedom.

Well thats some of the present company sure. But you guys are leftists. You’ve been around a bit? Stop pulling my leg here. Surely you must have bumped up against people who are psychologically utopian-eschatologist? If indeed you are not yourself one of them?

It really doesn’t matter in the final analysis, what some alleged reasonable wing of the leftist idealists have in their hearts, in terms of present intention. Because the more hard-core will always be able to hijack the agenda. And while I trust some lefties (an imaginary hand-picked few) wouldn’t screw up policy (were policy just up to them)…….. I don’t trust any of you here to put up a fight against the hard-core Quixotic left, or the natural organic expansion of power.

We know how this works. First we have the international treaty. Then this is expanded to an international bureaucracy with wide powers. Then the international bureaucracy will be expanded further into international government.

Almost no-one on the left can be relied upon to fight this progression (both forced and organic), tooth-and-nail, every step of the way.

You won’t fight this. You just won’t. You won’t fight it every step of the way. Supposing its not your present intention, to move to a one world government right now. Supposing its not your present intention to move in the direction of a one world government in a series of small steps.

But you are of the left, and there are people amongst you who want to go down that atrocious path. All these wicked traitors need to do, is to convince some of you, of the worthiness of the next step. Then they will try to convince you of the worthiness of the next usurpation thereafter. Then the one after that. Followed by the one following. The marginal loss of sovereignty after that as well will be dressed up in ribbons, and will look so cute and crafty, that you might be able to get ME to agree, that it is an in-principle “good idea.”

Now that we know all this, how about staring the reality of the situation dead straight in the face: YOU MAY AS WELL BE COMMUNIST ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT CONSPIRATORS RIGHT FROM THE GETGO. For practical purposes, nearly all of you leftists, may as well be absent-minded traitors.

There is no question that the draft treaty that Monkton told us about, was written with global governance in mind. You cannot bullshit the rest of us about this. This is a fact.

Is global governance what you are after with this global warming fraud? This is not what you guys were drooling-for surely?

Or was it?

I cannot speak for you. But would you have fought hard against each step in that direction, no matter how powerfully attractive they were tricked out to be?

I don’t think so. Because you DID NOT fight hard against the goals of the Copenhagen climate meeting. Nor are you fighting hard against the idea of climate treaties now. Nor are you demanding that the IPCC be cut off financially and disbanded.

Monkton brought you all the news that the draft treaty was set up for global governance. Does that offend any of you? Did you not believe him? Would you have fought against global slavery? Well why didn’t you?

I have seen a “free trade agreement” turned into a hateful, illegitimate Bonapartist takeover-attempt. Some sophisticates amongst the Europeans would have foresaw, that those who could make it count, had this Quixotic-Napoleonic, intention and state-of-mind, right from the start, all those decades ago.

Why didn’t you listen to Monkton and why were you not offended by this Quixotic attempted usurpation?

Perhaps some of you cannot get past the good Lords Marty-Feldman-eyes.

The European Economic Community started as a simple trading bloc. You do remember that FACT don’t you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The English kicked ass everywhere. Killed people and grabbed territory on every corner of the globe. And even as a diminished power, the English accumulated enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Soviet Union.

Now the English are dispossessed. There is no such country as England. There is no extant legal political entity known as England. How was England obliterated? With what weaponry? What was the morale of the opposing troops like? What was the military doctrine of such a powerful and wicked antagonist as they that brought old England down? Can we describe the laserlike sharpness and efficiency, of the wicked opposing powers military bureaucracy, that directed actions, strategic and tactical, for the final destruction of the nation of Merry-England?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

England was destroyed by a free trade agreement. How many of the leftists who were behind signing England up to the “European Economic Community”, wanted, at the time, to destroy England?

When you on the left, or the middle or the centre-right say things like “Ho ho. You think global warming is a conspiracy” well this is just typical idiocy and irrelevant trash-talk. People ought to have listened to Monkton. You guys think the conspirationalists are naive! You have it all ass-backwards. Even Janet has this story ass-backwards.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Who are these ‘leftists’ to whom you’re referring? Are you addressing those well-known commies at Catallaxy?

  2. To any leftist who is deluded enough to think that they won’t screw things up if they ever get near the levers of power.

    I cannot rightly think of an exception. Let me know if you manage too.

  3. I cannot rightly think of an exception. Let me know if you manage too.

    Anarchist Spain.

  4. What time period? If its anarchist, then there is no controlling elite of leftists that you have to be confident of.

    I would trust anarchy, if weapons technology could knock people over and send them to sleep for five minutes, without inflicting permanent damage. Then anarchy would be the best setup, without question.

  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

  6. I cannot judge these places for righteousness. There may have been an anarchist province that briefly was about the same level of cool as the area around Chiang Mai in Thailand is.

    But we could not have trusted good governance in these areas at the time. For if Franco had not have won these places would have slipped under the control of Mordor under Stalin.

  7. Anarcho-Capitalism has the biggest potential upside of any society. But can we get and stay there without slaughter? Will not small problems grow and take over? Is it a stable setup?

    Probably no, no and no. I remain hopeful but not reckless.

  8. That isn’t necessarily true, and I’m not sure what makes you think Franco’s Spain was better than the satellite states of the USSR. Pre-occupation (i.e. pre-1968) Czechoslovakia would have probably been better on many levels than Franco’s Spain.

  9. “That isn’t necessarily true, and I’m not sure what makes you think Franco’s Spain was better than the satellite states of the USSR. ”

    Its a fact.

  10. Its a fact.

    Which, in this instance, is merely an opinion founded on your own personal ideological allegiances.

  11. No don’t tell lies. Its just a fact.

    Give me a sample of Moscow-dominated communist country’s and we will see this for sure. It will turn out that you have no idea what you are talking about, soft-pedaling Stalin in this way. Or you may know what you are talking about, but choose to lie about it in any case.

    What collection of countries under Stalin, are you thinking of specifically?

  12. Franco’s Spain was economically hopeless. It had to be propped up with large amounts of US dollars. You’re backing a nag in this race.

    • I think you are dead right. I think Franco’s Spain was pretty hopeless alright. I agree with you on that point. This is not what we were saying here.

  13. Graeme, do you support national planning?

  14. Britain was brought low for the same reasons America is: the crippling costs of maintaining its empire, its highly centralised military economy run by the state and which funded its colonial wars and the inability of any discrete nation state to rein in or control the workings,, movement and logic of capital and capital accumulation.

    So yes the free market is objectively anti-statist and forms of national planning which everywhere entail military spending as a large part of state-funded budgets cause friction even chaos in the realm of international relations and vis-à-vis other nation states.

    Houston we have a problem.

  15. “Graeme, do you support national planning?”

    Thats a pretty involved question. Not as a general free for all no. Not in terms of a lot of spending or great levels of compulsion.

    But I see the need for industry plans to take many industries smoothly to a situation where they are functioning like a free market ought to.

    I also see the need to use an holistic approach to get to where we are in a sound position to deal with nuclear intimidation.

    I also have a thing about canals and the partial reversal of the enclosure movement. But thats a multi-century sort of deal.

    In no case do I support planning that involves a lot of spending or a lot of compulsion.

    Where planning means literal-planning yes. Where planning means lots of stealing and compulsion no.

  16. You’re avoiding the central contradiction of your avowed support for decentralisation and self-government down even to the level of the individual.

    I presume you would agree that so far as the nation state goes, since we are stuck with these artificial imagined formations for the time being, the desirable context for political and economic reform is national decentralisation and self-govenment and the preferred methods for enacting reform are the methods of non-violence?

    But in the age of imperialism as long as countries continue to prepare for war it is enormously improbable any of them will pursue a policy of decentralisation and an extension of the principle of self-government. On the contrary, power will tend to become more narrowly concentrated in all states, even allegedly democratic.

    All countries which make war and preparation for war an instrument of policy must possess a highly centralised, all-powerful executive. The US is living proof of this today as have been all past world empires.

  17. “Not as a general free for all no.”

    A statement which yet again shows the hypocrisy and fundamental lack of seriousness and credibility of those who have pinched the descriptor “libertarian” as laughably failed cover for an essentially highly centralised authoritarian and exploitative political economy.

    I would’ve thought “a general free for all” was precisely the basis of the sort of society populated by self-actualising citizens tbat genuine libertarians (i.e. leftists) envisage and work towards.

  18. Btw Mr Bird, may I congratulate you on a blog blessedly free of the excremental nonsensical droppings of Joe Cambria-BirdLab.

    And more power to your flight into new blog realms.

    I follow your development with great interest.

    Don’t forget the PayPal button. Look this guy does it. You’re at least as good a writer as he. (politics excepted).

    http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/

  19. “I presume you would agree that so far as the nation state goes, since we are stuck with these artificial imagined formations for the time being, the desirable context for political and economic reform is national decentralisation and self-govenment and the preferred methods for enacting reform are the methods of non-violence?”

    Right thats it right there. The value of the nation-state lies chiefly in putting a barrier up against foreign regimes. Whether themselves nation states, or more collective bodies.

    We want to prepare for war specifically so that we can be more internally focused, and try to improve things locally.

  20. I was thinking how young and in good shape Donovan looked in the clip. And so I checked and he was only about 35. Music industry veteran at 35. I must remember to check him out a bit more.

  21. He was about 20 here, the darling boy.

  22. Ah, his eyelashes are longer than anyone’s. His face is mesmerising, a kaleidoscope of swirling colours.

  23. “The value of the nation-state lies chiefly in putting a barrier up against foreign regimes. Whether themselves nation states, or more collective bodies.

    “We want to prepare for war specifically so that we can be more internally focused, and try to improve things locally.”

    I agree that the existence of the nation state leads to international economic and at times military rivalry and conflict. But this is a grave problem not a virtue and points to a fundamental irrationality in the way the world is thus organised.

    The use of quotas, tariffs, export bounties, exchange devaluation as devices for improving one’s position vis-a-vis another’s are often seen as aggressive, malevolent acts that invite reprisal. This cannot be a good thing in general either.

  24. To a nation as a whole – as happened with Britain and today the US – its colonies or role as world cop and meddling imperialist war-mongering overlord in so many parts of the world – can in the end be highly unprofitable and unacceptably costly to the government and its citizens whom it is supposed to be most concerned with protecting and whose well-being and development is allegedly primary.

    And in fact as you would be aware the ultra-powerful minority of the financiers and speculators with capital to invest and of capitalist producers with surplus goods to offload are by far the greatest winners out of this set up through the exorbitant profits they make and privately appropriate.

  25. Graeme

    Anyone who wants to discuss your weight on a blog is not your friend. Tell Mr Soon to sod off.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: