The Left on the "March for Sanity" Reply

The Phantom Left by Chris Hedges, representing the “good” Left

The two comics evoked the phantom left, as the liberal class always does, in defense of moderation, which might better be described as apathy. If the right wing is crazy and if the left wing is crazy, the argument goes, then we moderates will be reasonable. We will be nice. Exxon and Goldman Sachs, along with predatory banks and the arms industry, may be ripping the guts out of the country, our rights—including habeas corpus—may have been revoked, but don’t get mad. Don’t be shrill. Don’t be like the crazies on the left.

“Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?” Stewart asked. “We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is—on the brink of catastrophe—torn by polarizing hate, and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done. But the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don’t is here [in Washington] or on cable TV.”

And here’s what the actual Commies have to say:

Perhaps we Marxists are “undermining the Constitution.” I’m all for it. It’s not a holy document. It’s a racist treatise that divides American society into the have and have-nots. Even the rights we are granted are politically moderated. Attacking the injustices embedded in the Constitution is not an attack on the American people; it is an attack on the ruling class.

I refuse to buy into the American liberal notion of “bipartisanship”–that somehow “reaching across the aisle” is somehow better for everyone and is the only avenue to “change.”

Call me insane if you will, but the right wing is my enemy. I have no interest in working with them, or compromising away my rights for war funding.

The Democrats are not even the other side of the same coin. If the Republicans are the raised edges that cut into the skin of the working class, the Democrats are the pits that give the edges definition. It is not in my interest to murder my brothers and sisters in Afghanistan to continue the occupation of their country in order to pass the DREAM Act or to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That is an unacceptable compromise.

If that is “sanity,” then sanity is inadequate and unacceptable.

Is the U.S. a Fascist Police State? Reply

Yes! says Gonzalo Lira.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.

A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by—it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much.

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group—individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.

Were There African-American Confederates? Reply

Historian Bruce Levine says no,  but Walter Williams thinks the evidence says otherwise.

This is a question I used to discuss with a history professor of mine who was a Civil War expert. He got his Phd from Berkeley in the 1970s and Eric Foner was on his dissertation committee so you can guess what his politics were (very Meatheadish). He always insisted there was no evidence that blacks actually fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War. His arguments were the same as the ones Levine uses in the Post article. I’d ask him about some of the evidence to contrary (like the stuff cited by Williams and some of the responders to Levine) and he would dismiss it as unreliable or fabricated. He could never effectively answer my questions like why black historians in early 20th century America would want to forge evidence of blacks having fought for the Confederacy.

My tentative conclusion on this question has long been that the Confederate Army had a kind of policy on this question equivalent to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The official position of the Confederate political and military leadership does seem to have been to bar blacks from service. However, it’s also pretty well established that the policy was at least at times disregarded. There would seem to be two ways in which this might have occurred. One, local military commanders could have simply disregarded the policy when raising local forces out of military necessity. The other possibility is that the upper levels of Confederate leadership maintained an official policy of racial exclusion regarding military service as a means of avoiding public controversy, upholding the white supremacist ideological outlook that virtually all whites had in those days, and possibly avoiding unrest by white soldiers, but winked at military organizers and commanders who disregarded the policy in their actual practice (and possibly even encouraging them to do so).

US Crime: Don't Call The Police, They Won't Be Responding! 2

by Jeff  Prager

For about a decade and a half, crime rates in the United States have generally fallen.  That is the good news.  The bad news is that even during those “good” years, the United States still had the most car thefts, the most rapes and the most murders in the world.  And even though the United States has the most people in prison in the entire world by a large margin, there are all kinds of signs that there are still enough criminals out there for crime to start moving back up again.  Sure, there are some areas that are still recording small decreases in the crime rate, but there are other areas where the jump in crime statistics is more than a bit alarming.  There are millions of Americans that have been out of work for over a year at this point, and when people lose everything that they have they tend to totally lose it.  People get desperate when they lose their homes and they don’t have anything to eat.  For example, police in Chesterfield, Virginia are investigating 16 separate incidents just this month in which thieves stole food or drinks from homes, cars and even people walking on the street.  It wasn’t money that these crooks were after.

They just wanted something to eat.

As the economy gets even worse over the next couple of years, it is inevitable that we are going to start to see a lot more of this kind of thing.  Frustration and anger are on the rise from coast to coast, and when people don’t feel like they have anything to live for they become very dangerous.

As mentioned at the beginning of the article, it is undeniable that violent crime rates are significantly lower than they were 15 or 20 years ago in many areas of the nation.  An unprecedented standard of living fueled by our addiction to debt has kept most Americans fat, happy and generally sedated.  However, there are indications that we are approaching a “turning point” – a moment when crime rates start to go up significantly once again.

In fact, there are some forms of crime (such as sexual crime against children) that are already at ridiculously high record-setting levels.  For example, how in the world did we ever get to the point as a society where we have 400,000 registered sex predators running around?

As the economy continues to unravel, things are not going to get any better.  In fact, people who are suffering are only going to become more desperate.  Already, there are quite a few troubling signs out there.  The following are 12 crime statistics that make you wonder what is happening to America …

#1 The murder rate in New York City has increased more than 15 percent in 2010, and the number of rapes has shot up from 943 in 2009 to 1075 so far this year.

#2 In the city of Detroit, crime has gotten so bad and the citizens are so frustrated by the lack of police assistance that they have resorted to forming their own organizations to fight back.  One group, known as “Detroit 300?, was formed after a 90-year-old woman on Detroit’s northwest side was brutally raped in August.

#3 Crime in Miami Beach was up almost 11 percent during the first half of 2010.

#4 The murder rate in Tempe, Arizona is now the highest it has been in 10 years.

#5 Shoplifting is completely and totally out of control.  According to the National Association of Shoplifting Prevention, every single day Americans steal more than $35 million worth of goods from retail stores.

#6 Today, there are approximately 400,00 registered sex offenders in the United States.

#7 U.S. authorities claim that there are now over 1 million members of criminal gangs operating inside the United States. According to federal statistics, these 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of the violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year.

#8 The median age of the victims of imprisoned sex offenders in the United States is 13 years old.

#9 The crime rate in the San Diego school system is escalating out of control. The following is what San Diego School Police Chief Don Braun recently told the press about the current situation…

“Violent crime in schools has risen 31 percent. Property crime has risen 12 percent. Weapons violations (have gone up) almost 8 percent.”

#10 53 percent of all investigated burglaries in the states of California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

#11 Law enforcement officials estimate that about 600,000 Americans and 65,000 Canadians are trading dirty child pictures online.  They also say that the total profit from creating and trading these images is approximately two to three billion dollars every year.

#12 Each year, one out of every five people in the U.S. is victimized by crime.  No other nation on the planet has a rate that is higher.

So will the police step in to protect us all as crime increases?

Well, unfortunately police forces all across the United States are being slashed because the money just isn’t there anymore.

So all of us may soon be facing much more crime with much fewer police to assist us.

For example, because of extreme budget cuts and police layoffs, Oakland, California Police Chief Anthony Batts has announced that there are a number of crimes that his department simply will no longer respond to due to a lack of resources.  The following is a partial list of the crimes that police officers in Oakland will no longer be responding to….

  • burglary
  • theft
  • embezzlement
  • grand theft
  • grand theft: dog
  • identity theft
  • false information to peace officer
  • required to register as sex or arson offender
  • dump waste or offensive matter
  • loud music
  • possess forged notes
  • pass fictitious check
  • obtain money by false voucher
  • fraudulent use of access cards
  • stolen license plate
  • embezzlement by an employee
  • extortion
  • attempted extortion
  • false personification of other
  • injure telephone/power line
  • interfere with power line
  • unauthorized cable tv connection
  • vandalism

Not that Oakland wasn’t already a mess before all this, but now how long do you think it will be before total chaos and anarchy reigns on the streets of Oakland?

But this kind of thing is not just happening in Oakland.

The sheriff’s department in Ashtabula County, Ohio has been reduced from 112 deputies to 49 deputies, and now there is just one vehicle remaining to patrol all 720 square miles of the county.

So what in the world are the citizens of that county supposed to do to protect themselves?

Well, Judge Alfred Mackey said that the citizens of the county should do the following…

“Arm themselves.”

So is that where all of this is going?

Every man and woman for themselves?

The truth is that there are already many communities across the United States where it is simply not a good idea to go out of your home at night.

There has never been a bigger gang problem in U.S. history than we are facing today, there have never been more sex predators running around, and millions of Americans are going to become increasingly desperate as they lose their homes and can’t find jobs.

So how is crime where you live?


Getting Back to the ‘Real’ Constitution–Fagettaboutit 3

by Kirkpatrick Sale

There’s much talk these days, particularly by the Tea Party types, about getting back to the “real” Constitution, forcing the Obama government to honor the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers, and “understanding the Constitution through the eyes of its creators,” as one contributor to the Tenth Amendment Center recently put it.  That center, in fact, is dedicated to, and attracting a growing following for, a rigid interpretation of that amendment reserving to the states the powers not expressly given to the Federal government. And along with it in the last few years has grown up a Constitution Party that has the idea that the nation’s problems can be solved by “a renewed allegiance” to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and hence a return to “limited government.”  The problem with current officials of both parties, as the CP see it, is that they “ignore their oaths to uphold the Constitution,” that is to say, the Constitution  as originally written and used in the 18th century .

This would be a far different country, of course, if it paid an allegiance to the document of 1787 that the renegade Congress had come up with, in secret, that summer in Philadelphia, even along with its first ten amendments.  But what all the critics who believe that going back to the original Constitution would forestall the kinds of forces that have led to the present bloated, overstretched, intrusive, and unwieldy government do not realize is that this is what it almost inevitably had to lead to.

Let’s wake up these “real Constitution” die-hards and the ardent “Tenthers” and tell them that it’s a waste of time to try to resurrect that document in order to save the nation —because  because the growth of government and the centralization of  power is inherent in its original provisions.   As the anti-Federalists were trying to say all along from the very beginning of the ratification process.  Only when we get people today off this understandable but ill-fated track can we begin to open their eyes to the reality of our present peril: we have a big overgrown government because that’s what the Founding Fathers founded, and we won’t escape from it until we take the idea of secession as seriously as it must be taken.   Let’s look at some of the dangerous elements of the “real” Constitution.

It starts off with a phrase that, right there at the start, sounded alarm bells in those who, having experienced the powers of the individual states as sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation, saw that it was not to  the states but to “we the people” that power would be given.  “What right had they to say, We ,the people,” cried Patrick Henry to the Virginia ratification convention,  “instead of, We, the states?”  He saw that the phrase gave power to an amorphous “people” whom the new government could define and use as it chose, bypassing and undercutting the states.  If “the people” spoke through the Congress, it could willy-nilly ignore the individual states.

Which, indeed, is what happened, and Congress was cheerfully ratified in doing so by another centralizing branch of government, the Supreme Court.  But the idea was never more egregiously used than when Lincoln denied that the states had any particular power, indeed denied that they were sovereign entities at all, and argued that all power rests with the people, who had created a United States and wanted it united.  “Government of the people,” in other words,  means that Washington can do whatever it damn pleases in their name.

And the anti-Federalists had warned of exactly that seventy years before.  The framers of the Constitution, said Luther Martin, a delegate to the convention from Maryland, were crypto-monarchists whose “wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government…of a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations.”   That was said in November 1787—don’t say you weren’t warned.       But let’s go on with the faults of the centralizers’ Constitution.  There is in Article I a bold statement that “Congress shall have the power to” and there follow some specifics about taxes and debts—and then “provide for the… general welfare of the United States.”  Agree to that and you’ve agreed it can do anything it likes without check or rein, for what measure could not be thought to be enhancing the “general welfare”?  James Madison, who had a hand in Federal enlargement elsewhere in the document, saw the danger here: “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of …in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police.”  That is not what they had fought a war against the British monarchy for.    Not more than a few phrases away is the famous “commerce clause,” by which a Supreme Court, ever-willing to enhance the powers of the Washington establishment, managed almost from the beginning to enhance Congressional control over what the states would be allowed to do.  Congress shall have the power, it reads, “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.”  That would seem to mean that Congress could establish terms by which states could trade with each other, so that none would establish tariffs against any other—“a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves,” as Madison saw it, “rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

But positive is what the clause became.  The Supreme Court decided that practically anything that went on commercially within one state would have some kind of effect on all the others, in some way or other, and so government can regulate it; as early as 1828 it held that the government could regulate trade on the Hudson river for its entire length because some of it ran along New Jersey, and the monopoly New York state had given to Robert Fulton to run his steamboat it decided to be null and void because it affected New Jerseyans.  Its reading of the clause became ever more expansive as time went on and by the New Deal it gave the government carte blanche to interfere in state business down to the level of a janitor’s salary and a farmer’s wheat crop.

And as if that wasn’t a sufficient interference in state business, the Founding Fathers wound up their Constitution with a clause that ringingly asserted that what they had just enumerated as the powers of  the government—and any laws that they should subsequently pass “in pursuance thereof”—“shall be the supreme law of the land” and judges in the states better take that to heart.   This “supremacy clause” was hotly debated at the time because it, like the other sections above, could be interpreted in such a broad way that the states would be powerless to act on matters of serious concern, and thus it was that when there finally came a slew of amendments that the people of the states demanded as checks on Federal power, one of the most important was the Tenth, asserting that Washington had only the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution and the states had jurisdiction in all else.

Which brings up the final deficiency in that Constitution, that Tenth Amendment itself.  It seems clear that a great many serious people felt that when it said “the powers not delegated to the U.S….are reserved to the states…or to the people,” that this guaranteed a considerable sovereignty for the states.  But the centralists agreed to it (and put it at the end of the Bill of Rights) because they knew that it was so unspecific, so merely rhetorical, that it was capable of any interpretation—and that a Supreme Court capable of giving itself judicial review over Congress ( not enumerated in the Constitution) would be capable of finding that the powers delegated to the U.S.  were pretty vast and those given to the states were few and limited in scope.  As it so happened.

The Tenthers are fighting valiantly to reverse the 220 years in which that last item in the Bill of Rights has been emasculated and rendered effectively irrelevant, and they may even be gaining some attention, particularly in the states’ growing resistance to Obamacare.  But it seems most unlikely that, with the other centralizing tools at their command, the Federal courts will give it much consideration.   And then when they finally see their beloved amendment in shreds, maybe then the Tenthers and other Constitutional-Firsters will begin to see that the U.S. Constitution, by the centralists, of the nationalists, and for the Hamiltonians, is not a document that will lead them to liberty and sovereignty.  The only method for that, let us hope they finally realize, is secession.

On Putting the Legal Racket Out of Business Reply

Tonight, I had a conversation with a woman who has worked in a clerical capacity for the court system in three different jurisdictions in my state.  She told me that during her time as a court employee she observed that if drug cases were eliminated from the court system altogether the criminal division of the courts would essentially be non-existent compared to what it is now. Hmmm.

Beware Human Rights Imperialism Reply

It’s somewhat surprising to find an article like this in a relatively mainstream publication like the Guardian.

Yet it does not require that much thought to realise that people in different countries may have different views about what policies would be most appropriate for achieving economic growth or that attitudes towards certain human rights are quite socially and culturally specific. No one should ever be tortured, arbitrarily executed or held in slavery, but notions such as freedom of expression, religion and sexual relations do vary in different parts of the world. The right to private property is basically a western concept, which may be politically sensitive in societies where it is associated with capitalism and colonialism.

Why Motorcycle Clubs Are Potential Constituents for Anarcho-Pluralism 5

Of all my positions on various things, one of the most controversial is my view that official outlaw organizations like motorcycle clubs and street gangs are potential constituents for the anarcho-pluralist struggle against the state. Indeed, aside from my militantly anti-totalitarian humanist outlook, this issue combined with my insurrectionist views are probably the aspects of my thinking that raise the most eyebrows.  Here’s an illustration of why I take this position:

Jury Chosen at Outlaws Trial in Richmond

Notice this passage in particular:

(Defense attorney) Collins said the job of the undercover agents is to break up gangs such as the Outlaws. He urged the jury to pay close attention to whether they were collecting evidence or instigating problems.

An authentic anarchist movement should be defined first and foremost by two essential characteristics. The first of these is a commitment to freedom of thought and speech in the tradition of Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, or Bertrand Russell. This is where our PC “anarchist” thought police fail the exam. The second characteristic should be a defense of all those who come under the attacks of the state. Clearly, the role of state agents in the infiltration of motorcycle clubs and other comparable organizations for the sake of stirring up violence between different groups should be exposed and attacked by opponents of the state. There are numerous reasons for this. First, such state agents often participate in crime themselves, and not just consensual crimes like buying and selling drugs. State agents of this kind provoke violence that would not otherwise occur in many circumstances. State attacks on motorcycle clubs or anti-gang laws essentially criminalize freedom of association and are used as a weapon against subcultures that are at odds with the establishment. Lastly, the same tactics that are used against groups like motorcycle clubs are often used against political dissidents as well. See COINTELPRO.

It matters not whether the members of such organizations are “good” people are not. Political and social struggles are not contingent on the virtue of the individual members of groups that are under attack by the state or the ruling class. We might aid a general strike by fast food workers, even though some fast food workers may be virtuous people and others may be scumbags. The historic struggle against evils like labor exploitation, slavery, the religious subordination of women, religious persecution, or the state persecution of homosexuals was not contingent on the individual character or personality of individual workers, slaves, women, religious or ethnic outgroups, and gays. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we adopt the totalitarian humanist practice of defining individual virtue by group identity, either. It is fine to recognize genuine problems caused by, for instance, the presence of street gangs for residents of nearby neighborhoods.  It is fine to hold individuals accountable for harm they do to others. Not all criminal prosecutions are “unjust” by any means, though we may ultimately seek abolition of the state’s “criminal justice” system and its replacement with our own private, common law, tribal, or otherwise non-statist legal systems.

Still, a crucial test of a true anarchist is the degree to which anarchists defend all enemies of the state, regardless of their personal feelings about them or the individual characteristics of persons involved. Fuck the feds, I’m rooting for the Outlaws.

Civic Engagement is for Suckers 3

Kevin Carson tells why.

This reminds me of a conversation I had a while back with a left-liberal, Dissent-magazine type who argued that liberals should be for the draft on the grounds that the draft would result in fewer wars because people wouldn’t support war if their kids had to do the fighting. I pointed out that American wars tended to be even more extreme and casualty-producing when the state had a virtually unlimited supply of conscripts at its disposal. See Vietnam, Korea, the two World Wars, and the Civil War.

He replied, “Yeah, but the draft would contribute to greater civic involvement. You can’t have a liberal society when fifty percent of the population opts out.” The latter comment was a reference to the percentage of Americans who actually vote in elections.

My reply? “Well, who cares about having a liberal society in the first place?”

Good Liberals for the Therapeutic Police State Reply

Chris George discusses one of liberalism’s greatest hypocrisies.

One thing that libertarians, anarchists, radical anti-statists, left-wing civil libertarians, and anti-authoritarians who wish to repeal prohibition laws should always remember is that this automatically puts us in conflict with the proponents of therapeutic-feminist-liberalism. The primary enemies on these issues are no longer theocratic reactionaries or law and order conservatives, but those who support prohibitionism under the banner of totalitarian humanism.

Btw, Charles Johnson’s “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty As We Know It” is well worth reading.

If You’re Not an Extremist, You’re Not Paying Attention Reply

From Kevin Carson. Read the entire article.

If you think the anti-government paranoids of right and left are “extremists,” it’s a safe bet you don’t know much of anything at all about the actual historical record of federal law enforcement, the content of legislation like the 1996 Counter-Terrorism Act or USA PATRIOT, or the broad range of “national security” powers claimed by the Executive in the event of martial law proclaimed unilaterally by … wait for it … the Executive.

If you think Noam Chomsky’s a raving anti-American lunatic, it’s a safe bet that you don’t know anything about the role of the U.S. government after WWII in setting up provisional governments staffed by former Axis collaborators, about the things the U.S. government did in Guatemala in 1954 and Jakarta in 1965, about Operation Condor, or about the School of the Americas.

What it comes down to is that the “mainstream consensus” is manufactured — manufactured by the very institutions that depend on it for their survival. One of the most important functions in any society is the cultural  apparatus, whose job is to reproduce a population that accepts the system of power as legitimate and as the only natural or inevitable way of doing things. The range of “mainstream” or “moderate” policy proposals, by definition, encompasses only those policies that can be carried out within the existing framework of dominant institutions, by the kinds of people currently running them.  Any proposal that requires fundamental changes in the institutional framework or structure of power is, by definition, “extremist.”

The New Ruling Class And Taxpayer Funded Brainwashing Reply

by Dr. Sean Gabb

One of the many annoyances of living in a country like England—and I believe this also applies to America—is that lack of effective opposition within the mainstream media to outrageous acts of the authorities.

I do not mean by this that when the police shoot someone or beat him to death, there is no coverage in the newspapers and on television. This is not the case at all. Official misconduct that amounts to oppression as traditionally conceived is fully covered, and this is occasionally successful at bringing the guilty parties to something that is regarded as justice. Equally, the wars of the past decade have been fully discussed and exposed by at least the British media.

However, where oppressions are concerned that have so far been unknown or uncommon within our own civilisation, such protest as is voiced is generally muted, where not almost wholly beside the point.

Let me give a specific instance of what I mean. On the 12th September 2010, The Mail on Sunday, which is one of the main British Sunday newspapers, carried a story under the heading Taxpayers fund council ‘adventures in Sindia and Lesbianandgayland’ as part of sessions on equality and diversity. As readers may be suspicious about the neutrality of any summary, the story is worth quoting at some length. It begins:

“Council bosses are being asked to imagine they are English economic migrants in the fictitious region of Sindia, or go on an ‘adventure in Lesbian-andgayland’ as part of publicly-funded training sessions on equality and diversity.

“More than 30 managers from Brighton and Hove City Council have been on the two-day ‘Leading on Diversity’ course in the past year—at a cost of several thousand pounds. In the session entitled Adventures in Sindia, the English Exodus, staff are asked to imagine that it is 2030 and the ‘world is a very different place’.

“In this scenario, much of the South-East of England and East Anglia is under water.

“Millions of English families desperate for work have been forced to uproot to Sindia, an economic federation which is made up of China and India.

“All the participants are asked to imagine that they are a seven-year-old child called Sarah Hardy, whose family has just moved to Delhi.

“They are also warned that the English are largely despised in India because they have a reputation for ‘illegality, criminality, cultural conservatism and an inability to learn the host language’.

“The course material states: ‘Your seventh birthday was a miserable occasion. Your parents invited all the children in your class to a party.  All but one failed to turn up and none sent an RSVP.

“‘The only child who came was a Jewish girl from Hungary. Somehow you felt that she understood what you were going through, even though you never talked about it.’”

“The course attendees are told that while in Sindia they can expect to hear comments such as: ‘Why do you insist on eating that bland food? What you need is a good masala’, ‘Do your parents really force you to drink alcohol at the age of ten?’, and ‘What do you call an English virgin? A contradiction in terms’.

In the other session, staff are asked to imagine that ‘while asleep one night they have slipped through a wormhole in space’ and woken up in a parallel world where it is normal to be lesbian or gay.

“They are told that they are now in a country where ‘heterosexual teachers are very reluctant to come out’, ‘the ideal family consists of a lesbian or gay male couple’, and ‘that conceiving a child by heterosexual intercourse is viewed with distaste’…”

The only complaint against all this voiced in Mail article is that “[Town Hall] officials… have been accused of wasting taxpayers’ money by sending staff on controversial courses“.

This is a fair criticism. At the moment in England, about one pound in every four spent by the State is borrowed. Some of the remainder is financed by printing money. Taxes are heading into what most economists regard as the red zone. Sooner rather than later, the new Conservative-Liberal Coalition proclaims, there must be substantial spending cuts that will affect everyone who, legitimately or otherwise, receives benefits from the State.

Yet, in spite of this, arms of the British State are spending money on what can only be regarded as brainwashing exercises.

Nevertheless, if it is fair to complain about the misuse of the taxpayers’ money, these are not the most relevant grounds for complaint. From the point of view of those spending it, the money is very well spent. It is, indeed, far more important for these people that money should be given to organisations like Aziz Associates, which developed this course, than spent on keeping the streets clean or the swimming pools open and affordable.

Of course, so long as there have been governments, the main use of the taxpayers’ money has always been the funding of a ruling class and its clients, and the manufacture of consent to their actions.

But what makes the spending priorities of the British State so striking nowadays is their revolutionary purpose. Spending the taxpayers’ money on this sort of exercise is not a waste of that money—but an important legitimisation of what the current ruling class in England is about.

Because it proceeded slowly in it origins, and was not attended by violence or any formal break with continuity, it is often difficult to see that my country has, for about the past thirty years, been living through a revolution as radical and as contrary to human nature as the Russian or French Revolutions. Because this revolution has taken place within the forms of the pre-existing order, it has had no markers as obvious as the storming of the Bastille or of the Winter Palace. Instead, it has taken place slowly and at different speeds within each branch of the State. It has been a matter of one person appointed to a senior position, as opposed to somebody else, of new written guidelines to junior staff, of new phrasing and new logos.

We could point to the election of a Labour Government in 1997. Undoubtedly, this was a government of radicals, fully committed to the revolution. But this revolution was already far advanced before 1997, and there is no reason to suppose that the electoral defeat of Labour earlier this year will have any effect on the continued progress of the revolution.

I could proceed to an analysis of the revolutionary doctrines. But I increasingly believe that, while stated ideologies are always important, they are, in the present case, far less important than the motivations.

And the motivation is the desire of a new ruling class—a class made up of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, educators, activists, and associated media and business interests—to secure absolute and unaccountable power for itself.

In England, even before the achievement of universal suffrage, government was always broadly by consent. The ruling class was small, and recruited mainly by birth and by the co-option of the most able; and the forces available to it were always insufficient for large-scale misgovernment.

Added to its size was the essential simplicity of its governing structures. Ministers were formally appointed by the Crown, which was the supreme legal authority, and responsible to a Parliament which—if often very loosely—was representative of the people. All official actions, even if he was unaware of them, were the responsibility of a specific Minister—and he could be forced to account for these, and might sometimes be forced to resign because of them. Before the classical age of the Constitution, he might even be tried and punished for these actions.

Education, the media, the enforcement of the law, and most business were either independent of the State or so radically decentralised and founded on immemorial right, that normal government had to take place by discussion and consent. If most ordinary people had no regular voice in affairs, they could make their voice heard by rioting—and the means of repressing such disturbances were generally inadequate—or by reliance on other immemorial rights that the ruling class as a whole had no desire to abridge.

Because of a shared horror of the republican and Stuart despotisms of the seventeenth century, there was no interest group within the ruling class to push for a more efficient or extended government. It was accepted that a more active state would require activist officials who would interfere with the landed and chartered interests of the ruling class. Because the English State, as it was allowed to exist by the ruling class, was so inefficient and corrupt, no one outside the ruling class wanted this state to be given any functions beyond those it already had.

In the early nineteenth century, for example, regulation of the factories was opposed partly because it meant an interference with freedom of contract—but also because no one believed that factory inspectors would bother to inspect any factories.

This Constitution was first unbalanced by the Whig reforms of the 1830s. Changes in the franchise were less important than the setting up of bureaucratic inspectorates to deal with public health and education, and then the rooting out of inefficiency and corruption within the civil service as a whole.

The stated—and almost certain—object of these reforms was to secure cheaper and more humane government. In the short term, this object was largely secured.

Its longer term effect, however, was to set off what may be called a Public Choice explosion. Officials were able to collect and manipulate statistics to justify greater numbers and status for themselves. As the prestige of the old ruling class faded in an age of democratic claims and belief in progress, politicians found it increasingly hard to face down demands for more state activity. These demands were amplified by external interests that stood to benefit. The mass of those who had to pay for increased government, or were harmed by it, had neither enough personal interest nor the ideological force needed to make a sufficient defence.

By 1914, the old forms of the Constitution remained intact, but had been joined by the outlines of a modern administrative state. Two big wars and the progress of socialist ideology solidified the administrative state. By about 1980, this administrative state was large enough and powerful enough to do whatever it pleased. It managed education and healthcare and welfare for the mass of the people, and managed the exercise of many rights that had not been formally abolished.

This is the State that was captured—perhaps during the Conservative Government of the 1980s—by the new ruling class. At the time, we called these people socialists. Many of them began as Marxists in the old-fashioned sense. Many began as old-fashioned administrative socialists in the English sense.

But their ability to move backwards and forwards between often contradictory legitimising ideologies should have made it clear that they were not socialists in any traditional sense. Sometimes, they argued for what they called the interests of the working class, sometimes for public health or health and safety, sometimes for racial equality, sometimes for efficient government, sometimes for cheaper and more efficient criminal justice, sometimes for more human criminal justice, sometimes for protecting the environment, sometimes for compliance with the requirements of international agencies.

The overall effect of their activity, however, was always the same. This was always to subject us to yet another interfering and proselytising bureaucracy that had no regard for our immemorial rights as Englishmen.

Readers of VDARE.COM will tend to focus on the multicultural legitimisations of the new ruling class, and the mass-immigration of non-whites that has attended it. There can be no doubt that this has been one of the most important legitimisations.

But I do suggest that things like the War On Smoking, and against homophobia, and restriction on what light bulbs, and changes in legal procedure, and loss of sovereignty to organisations like The European Union and the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, and so on and so forth, are equally important.

These are all coordinate parts of a project by the ruling class to insulate itself from any accountability to or any challenge from the mass of the ruled. We are to be governed in ways that we do not understand and do not like, and often by agencies sanctioned by foreign authorities over which we have at best a decorative and indirect influence.

The most important questions any subject of a government can ask are: Who is my Lord? and What do I owe to my Lord? In the England where I was born, the answers were still: My Lord is the Queen in Parliament, and I am obliged to obey such laws as are made by the Queen in Parliament or derived by the Judges from the Common Law; and these laws must always be made and exercised with my consent.

But I now live in a country where these answers no longer describe the reality. And the reason why these answers no longer apply is because power has been seized by a revolutionary clique that wants to reduce me and mine to serfdom.

It is with this narrative in mind that the activities of Aziz Associates must be analysed. As said, spending our money on this and similar organisations is not a waste of our tax money. The function of the project uncovered by The Mail on Sunday is not so much to stop people from disliking homosexuals and foreigners, as to make them feel ridiculous. They are forced thereby to acknowledge in public and to themselves who is boss, and that to resist the boss in anything is fatal. Also, once they have been bullied into such nonsense, the only way that many people will be able to retain any feeling of self-respect is to persuade themselves that it was all in a good cause.

Do you remember how Caligula appointed his horse as one of the Consuls for the year? Was this because he was mad, and he somehow thought the appointment would please his horse? Or was the act a deliberate humiliation of a still powerful and highly conservative aristocracy, the members of which now had to make public fools of themselves as they went about the business of consulting the horse on policy and fitting it into the traditional ceremonies?

There are similar stories about the victims of the French and Russian Revolutions. Indeed, I recall an English crime report from many years ago, where some thugs caught two middle aged, middle class woman and murdered them. Before murdering them, they made their victims perform “erotic dances”. Again, this probably wasn’t because the thugs found simple pleasure in watching middle aged, middle class woman engage in lesbian sex. It was to humiliate the women and to break them into whatever else was expected of them before they were murdered.

Going back to the present case, people who have abased themselves in the ways required before the altar of political correctness will be less inclined to protest at or to sabotage the tyrannical whims of their masters. Many, indeed, can be expected to join in with apparent pleasure.

Some, no doubt, will file the humiliation away for some future time when the tables may have been turned. But most will go along with it.

The permitted response to this sort of outrage is to demand that it should be stopped—that the officials concerned should be reminded of their proper duties. But this is a worthless response. When a Labour Government in the 1940s spent large amounts of money on cultivating groundnuts in Africa, it was condemned. Eventually, the project was cancelled. But that was in the days when everyone agreed that the function of the State was to provide common services—even if there was much debate over the nature and extent of these services. As said, however, we are now ruled by an interlocking set of proselytising bureaucracies. Humiliating and brainwashing people is their function. No orders from a Minister in London—even assuming there were a Minister inclined to issue them—will change the general behaviour of these bureaucracies.

The only workable response to this sort of case is to shut down the relevant bureaucracies. They cannot be reformed. They cannot be persuaded to act other than as they do. Least of all are there alternative personnel to manage or staff them. The only people able to run these bureaucracies are those already within them.

They can only be smashed. They must be shut down—preferably all at once. Their staff must be thrown into the street, and must lose their pensions. Their records must be burned. And their records must be burned even if they are likely to contain evidence of criminal or treasonable acts. What England needs above all else—and perhaps America too—is not a government of piecemeal reform, but a government of reaction such as took power in England in 1660, on the restoration of the Monarchy. Every single law made since a certain time must be repealed.

Perhaps a few can be re-enacted. But the reaction must be stern and unbending. It must be this not only because it is just, but primarily because any government of reaction will be strong enough for one frontal assault on the institutions of the administrative state, and nothing more.

Now, I think all this puts me at a distance from many of the people who write for and who read VDARE.COM. It may raise suspicions that I, as a libertarian, am less interested in the specific horrors of the politically correct administrative states that we have than in simply downsizing the State. Many people, I suspect, would be happy to keep a large state if only it acted other than it does. I, on the other hand, would be just as opposed to this kind of state as to those we actually have.

There may be some justice in this. We libertarians may be the equivalent of the Trotskyites who latch onto every grievance of the poor, nodding sympathetically and then pushing their own line of international revolution.

Even so, I would urge the merits of my analysis. There are people who blame our present situation chiefly on the workings of some small group or other—Jews, bankers, cultural Marxists, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, or whatever. I suggest that the impending collapse of our civilisation may be traced in part to local causes. But local causes are usually secondary causes. Even without them, the final effects would be much the same.

Even if we were to strip out every effect of mass-immigration and multiculturalism from our countries, it would remain the case that we were not living under any kind of limited, constitutional government.

The powers of a still enlarged state would remain in the hands of other malevolent interest groups—or the void left by one strand of the overall legitimisation would be filled by some other as yet unimagined.

The problem is not that we have bureaucracies telling people to think themselves into refugee status in Sindia-Lesbianopolis, but that we have bureaucracies open to capture by proselytising totalitarians.

Whatever the case, we are not at the stage where improvement of any kind seems likely. The State as we have it will continue rolling forward over legal or immemorial rights. We remain at the stage where the best we can do is discuss the most appropriate explanations of what has gone wrong—and what we might, in more opportune circumstances, do about it.

Dr. Sean Gabb [Email him] is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back is downloadable here. For his account of the Property and Freedom Society’s 2008 conference in Bodrum, Turkey, click here. For his address to the 2009 PFS conference, “What is the Ruling Class?”, click here; for videos of the other presentations, click here.