Something to ponder over

We now have a Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who not only expressed great sympathy and admiration for the IRA, on which he was called out by Nigel Dodds, DUP MP for Belfast North yesterday after the slightly idiotic attempt by the new Leader of the Opposition to turn PMQs into a phone-in, but he has expressed the view that he loathes capitalism and spends his time fomenting opposition to it and planning to destroy it.

So, I think it is time to look at a description of what that entails. But, first, Mr Dodds [you have to scroll down to read the different contributions]:

The plaques at the entrance door to this Chamber in memory of Airey Neave, Robert Bradford, Ian Gow and Sir Anthony Berry—serving Members of this House who were murdered by terrorists as they stood up for democracy and the British way of life—are a reminder of the savagery and brutality of terrorism, as are the gravestones and the headstones in Northern Ireland and right across this land. The Opposition Leader has appointed a shadow Chancellor who believes that terrorists should be honoured for their bravery. Will the Prime Minister join all of us, from all parts of this House, in denouncing that sentiment and standing with us on behalf of the innocent victims and for the bravery of our armed forces who stood against the terrorists?

Honourable Members and the Prime Minister, I am glad to say, did join him but as I did not watch PMQs I do not know whether the Labour Front Bench did. Still, as they say, never forget.

On to that hatred of capitalism. I happen to be reading a recent biography of Stalin (yes, yes, I know, a masochist of the first order) by Oleg Khlevniuk, translated by Nora Seligman Favora and published earlier this year by Yale University Press.

In his introductory chapter, Khlevniuk writes:

Underpinning Stalin's worldview was an extreme anti-capitalism. His hostility towards this system was unequivocal, and he rejected even the limited concessions that Lenin made in instituting the New Economic Plan (NEP). Stalin grudgingly allowed a few capitalist economic vehicles within the Soviet system, such as money, limited market relations, and personal properly.

After millions had died during the famine of 1932 - 1933, he agreed to allow peasants limited freedom to produce and sell outside the collective and state farm system. But to the end he believed that the concessions that had been forced on him by hard circumstances would soon be reversed and the socialist economy would be transformed into a money-free powerhouse where people would work as ordered by the state and receive in exchange the natural goods that the state decided they needed.

That, ladies and gentlemen, readers of this blog is what a man who is vehemently anti-capitalist really believes and wants to achieve.

Every time one thinks ....

... the Conservative Party has hit rock bottom a completely new chasm opens before one's feet. To be fair, this story started several days ago and has now been covered by a few people but I think I can add something or other to it all.

About three days ago the Daily Wail published an article in which it told us that

Hertfordshire’s Deputy Police Crime Commissioner Rachel Frosh has resigned today after she retweeted a quote said by Adolf Hitler.

The tweet, which was originally posted by a user under the name Fenrir, said: 'Dear Socialists, embrace your inner Nazism.'

A link took web users to a picture of Adolf Hitler captioned with a quote from him describing the fledgling Nazi party as socialist.

Speaking after the gaffe, she said: 'I recognise that I am not able to fully comment on some political issues whilst remaining as Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.

'It is therefore with great regret that I have tendered my resignation this morning.'

And that seemed to be that.

On Thursday Rachel Frosh (the Dr is a medical one as she has been that, working in the NHS, for twenty years) wrote a feisty article in The Commentator, in which she explained that although holding those views might hamper in her work as Deputy Police Crime Commissioner, she does not wish to distance herself from the fairly widely held opinion that National Socialism had its origins in socialism. The name is something of a give-away though few people on the left accept that. I recall having the usual sort of argument about Nazism being socialism with somebody solemnly assuring me that it could not be. The word "national" gave the truth away. I replied that I did not see why the word "national" should give anything away while the word "socialist" was ignored.

If one goes through the comments on the article one finds the same arguments rehashed though, I am happy to say, people who appear to know history seem to predominate.

However, I was still ignoring the story, as it seemed such a stupid storm in a teacup. No longer.

Yesterday morning The Commentator informed us all that Dr Frosh has now been suspended

from the Conservative Party's candidates list for the next general election, following hysterical coverage of a retweet of hers which linked Nazism to Socialism.

Party sources are reported to have confirmed the suspension in response to the retweet, which mockingly encouraged socialists to embrace their "inner Nazi".

I checked my calendar. No, it was not a particularly cold April 1 but a mildly warm February 15. What on earth is going on?

According to Guido Fawkes a Tory spokesman has confirmed that they viewed the comments as "completely unacceptable" and that she was, indeed, suspended from the party's candidate list.

Douglas Murray points out, as do many of us, that there is a clue in the name. As it happens, there were clues in the various ideas such as the notion of the individual as a cog in the great structure, shared by Nazis and Communists, both of whom grew from socialism.

It is neither an insult to all of the left, nor an attempt to exonerate all of the right, but rather a statement of historical fact that National Socialism had its origins in socialism. If the Conservative party’s apparatchiks look hard enough they will even find a clue in the name. But evidently they are too busy giving in to left-wing twitter-mobs to have time for such a bland and useless thing as historical truth.

They might also read the excellent Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg that gives a detailed analysis of the historic development.

James Delingpole calls his blog The Conservative Party - where telling the truth is a sackable offence and points out that the obvious connection between fascism, socialism and Nazism has always annoyed the left but it is a little odd, to put it mildly, for the Conservative Party to worry about that. When I think what Conservatives of the past, such as Margaret Thatcher, used to say about socialism I have to admit that not one of them would now be able to get to the candidates' list.

Iain Dale points out that he has made comments along those lines years ago and is, therefore, clearly not candidate material. (Actually, he is a better journalist than politician but let that pass.) And we get the same arguments about whether the fact that something is called socialist makes it socialist with at least one commenter saying that neither Stalin nor Hitler ended up as socialists. Let us forget the ideology: socialism is a lovely cuddly-wuddly set of ideas that wants to make a better world and everybody happy but people who claim to be putting that into practice always end up murdering and torturing millions so they cannot possibly be socialists. Or something like that. At least the Nazis had the sense not to confiscate everybody's property and allowed private business as long as the state remained totally in control; the economy did well unlike in the Soviet Union but that does not alter the basic ideas.

Dr Frosh herself has a website on which she explains that she, of all people, having studied Judaism and converted to it, can speak about the roots of Nazism. The special pleading, in my opinion, is unnecessary. Anyone can speak about the roots of Nazism and anyone can point to their essential socialist qualities; and anyone can disagree.

Setting aside what one thinks about the roots of Nazism, there are two things I find particularly appalling. One is the ignorance that is clearly displayed by the Conservative party hierarchy and the other is the notion that perfectly reasonable political views cannot be expressed by candidates if they upset the left-wing consensus of the twitterati. Here, if anywhere we can see the extent to which the left has captured the commanding heights of our cultural life.

It is as if all political parties (including UKIP) are now competing as to which can show itself in a stupider light and lose more support.

Let me say it again ...

.... because it cannot be said often enough: those who strike, demonstrate or riot for more state control and more redistribution of wealth by the state, whether in Athens or in London (where the inevitable Socialist Worker posters are much in evidence) are NOT anarchists. They are not anarchists of any kind, not even Bakuninites (and those are close to socialists); they are not anarcho-syndicalists, let alone anarcho-capitalists. One reader of this blog has suggested that they should be called anarcho-statists. Said reader is right but Prince Kropotkin is spinning in his grave.

In a way this is funny

In other ways it is infuriating as this garbage is being done if not in our name (since when has the UN acted in our name?) then at our expense. As far as most of us are concerned, whether Christian or not, today is Good Friday, one of the most solemn days of the Church. Appropriately enough, for those who know their Bible, this week is also Passover, an equally solemn and important part of the Jewish faith. Of course, there are many people for whom none of this is of the slightest significance (or so they think) and Good Friday is merely a holiday when one can indulge in sun-bathing or shopping as the mood takes you. (Yes, indeed, London is very warm and sunny.)

Well, you will be glad to know that you are all wrong. Today is International Mother Earth Day. I kid you not. This ludicrous and, undoubtedly, expensive enterprise was established by the UN in 2009 at the behest of various socialist dictators though, it would appear that there was no objection raised.

Socialist despot Evo Morales and his buddies at the United Nations sure do. You see, in April 2009, they passed a unanimous resolution to celebrate this important event every year. In the accompanying speech, Morales explained to his colleagues that "Mother Earth was now having her rights recognized" and expressed his hope that the present century will be known as the "century of the rights of Mother Earth." He explained to the UN that its member states "now had the opportunity to begin laying out a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth."

Just what our lives were lacking. I am surprised the UN has not started enforcing International Workers' Day on May 1.

Worse is to come. Evo Morales who, obviously, has nothing better to do in his country whose economy is not doing terribly well, "and the Bolivian government will table a draft UN treaty recognizing and enunciating the rights of the Earth — ahem, excuse me, the rights of Mother Earth. The issue will also be considered in an upcoming UN debate entitled "Nature Has Rights," where environmentalists from various activist groups will lend their support to the treaty and tell us why it's time we all recognize that Mother Earth has rights".

Of course, the whole concept of rights as applied to nature or "Mother Earth" is philosophical and ethical rubbish. But think of the number of committees, well-paid jobs, holidays conferences, taxes and regulations all this will entail. Never mind the EU, how soon can we get rid of the noxious UN?

ADDENDUM: One of the blog's readers posted this comment and I thought it deserved to be put on the main page:

Well, I've no problem with Mother Earth having 'Rights' (though I'm a little concerned by the inherent sexism there...'Person Earth', shurely...?). However, as everyone knows, with 'Rights' come responsibility, so perhaps the UN can persuade Person Earth to stop those ruinous tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, limit earthquakes to non-inhabited areas... just need to find a negotiating partner.

A great idea.

Snazzy and Shabby

Here is a solid analysis of the perpetual fight between those who believe in individual freedom being the only way a society can develop and those who believe that we cannot manage without the wise guidance of the state. David Solway starts with

a pair of small, wooden, humanoid counters, resembling those effigies we see on TV commercials advertising a cure for aching joints. One was called Snazzy Guy, the other Shabby Guy, and they would engage in furious battles which, after immense exertions and much thunderous pounding into one another, Snazzy Guy would invariably win. Shabby Guy would lie prostrate on the floor for some time before slowly reviving and preparing to enter the lists again.

Snazzy guy is the representative of those who love freedom, the true liberals (this nomenclature whereby liberals are the equivalent of socialists is truly confusing and misleading) and Shabby guy is the statist. Personally, I would say that it is Snazzy guy who gets knocked out and comes back again and again. By the end of the piece, David Solway takes the same view:

Snazzy Aristotle and shabby Plato are still banging heads. But the outcome of the conflict remains undecided although the shabby guys, it must be admitted, appear to have the upper hand, at least for the time being. The sorry fact is that in the actual world, befitting sequels are reversed and Snazzy Guy finds himself rather more often on the floor than his shabby opponent, both in the current scrimmage and the larger historical context. But his native resilience should not be underestimated as he picks himself up once again for yet another round in the brawl of ideologies.

Meanwhile, we have our own Shabby guy, otherwise known as the Boy-King of the Conservative Party or the Leader of the Cleggeron Coalition. His idea, which is not exactly new, of the Big Society is rooted precisely in the notion that people cannot organize anything for themselves. Far from being power to people, which would be a relatively easy thing to do, the Big Society sees local groups and communities being organized with the help of civil servants, appointed community activists and other suchlike statist regulators. As the official document explains:

Building this Big Society isn’t just the responsibility of just one or two departments. It is the responsibility of every department of Government, and the responsibility of every citizen too. Government on its own cannot fix every problem. We are all in this together. We need to draw on the skills and expertise of people across the country as we respond to the social, political and economic challenges Britain faces.

Read the rest of the document to see how the government is going to organize us all and create new jobs for community organizers to ensure that we are organized the way they think we should be in order to build that Big Society.

So, errm, how is this rather large piece of government expenditure going to be funded, given that the Cleggeron Coalition is faced with a huge deficit already? Easy. Dormant accounts as the BBC story explains. Perish the thought that the public sector be really cut and taxes be reduced so people might be able to fund voluntary organizations themselves. After all, if they are funded by the state, they are not exactly voluntary, no matter what they say.

When did we last hear about those dormant accounts the government was going to raid and use to its own purposes? Yes, indeed, it was a certain Gordon Brown who said that the money would be used " to fund youth and community projects". That was in 2005 and despite legislation in 2008 stealing the money from those dormant accounts has not proved to be easy. But worry not: Shabby guy Cameron is on the job.