Corn Laws and the creation of foaming at the mouth crazy Manchester Liberalism

Looking into the origins of Manchester Liberalism initiated by Richard Cobden, John Bright and the Anti-corn law league, it would be assumed that their victory was based on sound economic theory which triumphed in intellectual debate. Instead the picture which emerges is a giant vindication for the concept of culture being downstream of politics. Manchester Liberalism arose from political conflict, was not coherent, and nor was it correct in what it advocated.

As the author of a book on the subject writes here:

The story of repeal of the Corn Laws is a fascinating one which has intrigued researchers for 160 years as they continue to debate the extent to which its eventual success might be best attributed to (a) the intellectual and moral superiority of the principle of free trade over protection; (b) the well-financed and efficiently organized lobbying efforts of the Anti-Corn Law League; or (c) the role of political institutions (e.g., electoral reform in 1832 or the failure of the House of Lords to oppose repeal).”

Now I am going to go out on a limb here and dismiss A and C as serious candidates. To explain, let’s review what happened from an alternative viewpoint:

Two hyper moral figures in the form of Cobden and Bright with a seemingly messianic belief in one worldism through free trade begin a movement to repeal the corn laws which put a tariff on the price of imported corn. The arguments in favour of free trade are contradictory, unclear and scatter shot. It was a wild messianic moral attack against the tariffs conducted with venom and aggression, and it sounded suspiciously not too far off from Marx.

The movement whilst claiming to be of assistance to the workers in Manchester and the surrounding regions, was not supported by them at all, instead it was funded by industrial elites to act as a pressure group, going from a fund of £5,000 to £250,000 annually (£1.5 to £7.5 million-ish in today’s money.) in seemingly little time. With such “grass roots” supporters as James Wilson who set up The Economist to act as a propaganda organ, as the same author as the above quote writes:

The less well-known part of the story is that the League provided substantial financial assistance to The Economist – for instance, in purchasing 20,000 copies of the paper to distribute to leading Tories who might be persuaded by the succinct and persuasive (and independent) arguments of The Economist to support free trade, and reputedly also in donating funds directly  to the newspaper.”

I presume the inclusion of “independent” is sarcastic, but that is not clear in the least, in which case, in what way is a paper set up, and then funded by the movement “independent”? but then, this is a recurring theme in liberal movements.

Those advocating the Corn Law removal, such as Peel in this speech are not even remotely convincing. They didn’t win any arguments. Their wide ranging and weak claims go from economic arguments that don’t really hold beyond correlation, to claims that crime was reduced by free trade:

by the removal of protection, domestic industry and the great social interests of the country have been promoted; crime has diminished, and morality has improved. I can bring the most conclusive proof that the public health has been improved, yet the national trade has been extending, our exports have increased; and this – and I rejoice in it – has been effected, not only without serious injury to those interests from which protection was withdrawn, but I think I have shown that it has been concurrent with an increase in the prices of those articles.”

Ultimately, there is no smoking gun “objective” evidence to prove that repealing the corn laws was a positive thing, because all of the arguments rest on contextless assertions and appeals to morality, and without context they are meaningless, as seem to be the case with almost all economic discussion (same to be said for ethics.) It was a religious movement really.

The movement was successful not because it was correct, but it would seem because it was valuable to a certain group of people – the industrial liberal elite – the ones able to bring to bear £250,000 annually in 19th century money in comparison to the paltry £2,000 the “oppressive” pro-corn laws movement managed – just who is the David, and who is the Goliath here? Now, there may well have been a reasonable argument for repealing the corn laws to move the economy to one more centred on industrialisation, but instead of doing so, crazy free trade arguments designed for propaganda purposes prevailed and became set in stone as the overwhelming arguments that won the day. So now we have to listen to free trade advocates and libertarians mouthing a web of claims that occurred from the demotic battle between power centres in 19th century England. It was wild and nonsensical then, and it hasn’t been put on stronger ground since.

The actions of the anti-corn-law movement were from start to last, comparable to black lives matter. The usage of private funds to instigate violence, public disturbance and generally illegal and nominally “anti-governmental” action acted to provide support for policies that the likes of Villiers and Peel were already trying to push through.

My contention, in case it is not clear already from previous posts, is that this whole process is the result of the inability of the executive to function in a manner required to re-orientate the country to a new industrial position cleanly. Instead the anti-corn law movement is directly comparable to BLM, the civil rights movement and the rise of Protestantism. In all case the Iron law of rebellious tools is in place and in each case a part cynical usage of crazies is employed by those in power as a means to effect change, making these increasingly crazy liberal movements (aka progress) nothing more than the uncharted, and un-recorded actions of power. The driving force behind liberal culture, theory and thought has been excessive and mindless high-low battles, in which crazy people where employed to overpower the rest of society. Each time that underlying reason is lost, and the crazy propaganda and foaming at the mouth crazyness is enshrined as the cause and then added to.

As some light relief, I figure I would leave you with Thomas Carlyle’s take on the Corn Laws in Past and Present:

What looks maddest, miserablest in these mad and miserable Corn-Laws is independent altogether of their ‘effect on wages,’ their effect on ‘increase of trade,’ or any other such effect: it is the continual maddening proof they protrude into the faces of all men, that our Governing Class, called by God and Nature and the inflexible law of Fact, either to do something towards governing, or to die and be abolished, — have not yet learned even to sit still, and do no mischief! For no Anti-Corn-Law League yet asks more of them than this; — Nature and Fact, very imperatively, asking so much more of them. Anti-Corn-Law League asks not, Do something: but, Cease your destructive misdoing, Do ye nothing!

Nature’s message will have itself obeyed: messages of mere Free-Trade, Anti-Corn-Law League and Laissez-faire, will then need small obeying! — Ye fools, in name of Heaven, work, work, at the Ark of Deliverance for yourselves and us, while hours are still granted you! No: instead of working at the Ark, they say, “We cannot get our hands kept rightly warm;” and sit obstinately burning the planks. No madder spectacle at present exhibits itself under this Sun.

The Working Aristocracy; Mill-owners, Manufacturers, Commanders of Working Men: alas, against them also much shall be brought in accusation; much, — and the freest Trade in Corn, total abolition of Tariffs, and uttermost ‘Increase of Manufactures’ and ‘Prosperity of Commerce,’ will permanently mend no jot of it. The Working Aristocracy must strike into a new path; must understand that money alone is not the representative either of man’s success in the world, or of man’s duties to man; and reform their own selves from top to bottom, if they wish England reformed. England will not be habitable long, unreformed.”


Laissez faire? or agrarian primitivists?

From behind the scene discussion which I can’t take full credit for, it would seem that lunatics march in tandem with markets in a divided governance system.

Take for example the case of England and the corn laws. Let’s begin by labeling the free trade laissez faire advocates with a correct name, we can chose either “agrarian primitivists” or “agrarian communists” either works for me.  Laissez faire supporters in almost all ages were anti-industrialization, and anti-centralization of the state. That the concept of free trade and lassiaz faire is credited with the fruits of industrialization, when it (industrialization) is clearly the result of governmental centralization and active policy (including active non-intervention) is curious.

So let us imagine an alternate reality in which the UK had a governmental system that was significantly stronger and was able to merely make the change to agricultural importation policy to foster industrialization cleanly. Then we have no anti-corn law movement, no “classical liberal” lunatics and all of that crap which has been enshrined as the cause (when they were just the BLM of the day.) A good example can be seen in the orderly industrialization which occurred in Japan, and even the example of Italy in the 1930s. The idea that classical liberal laissez faire economics created industrialization is simply comparable to the idea that Rosa Parks and the rest of the black community were the instigators of the civil right era.

So from the very start, we can see markets and marxism marching in line in a divided governance structure, it is the only way to get anything done. Let the chimps loose to open the way for economic change. The free traders were chimps chimping out for social justice at the instigation of market actors

“The time might soon come when they might be called upon to inquire, as Christian men, whether an oligarchy which has usurped the government (Cheers), placed its foot on the Crown (Immense cheering, which continued some minutes), and trampled down the people (Continued cheering). – how far such an oligarchical usurpation was deserving of their moral and religious support (Immense cheering)….”

Markets and Marxism all the way.

The Anti-Corn Law Movement as a 18th century civil rights analogue

Is there such a thing as a deep state? I don’t think there is. I also don’t think anarcho-tyranny is a thing either. Both concepts are liberal concepts rooted in liberal mistakes over the nature of society and what humans are. There is no real division between the state and civil society as such. The connection between the two is inseparable, or rather, the separation is fantasy.

It seems that the fallacy of a separation of civil society and the state leads to the liberal democratic system, in which the state functions as a necessary evil protecting a society which operates spontaneously from the ground up. We know this is not true from simple observation, and indeed the implications of concepts such as sovereignty is conserved, imperium in imperio being a solecism, and power above culture  are that the state is always active and leading the rest of society by default. If you set up a formal structure which is designed to block the elite that make up the state from acting as a state (such as the republican structure is) then alternative means to act will be used by default.

If we take this as a starting point, and look at affairs accordingly, then we find that such things as the utilization of foundation funds to enact societal change make a great deal of sense in an extremely perverted and warped way. The idea is to let loose the crazies in society to act as means to break barriers allowing for planned change to occur – because simply ruling overtly and actively is not allowed, because of that state society split. This change is instigated by elites made crazy by the structure (and previous bouts of craziness), and they then have to let lose bigger crazies to defeat the right wing blocks. This lacks institutional memory, and as a result subsequent waves of elites start taking the older craziness seriously, despite their cynical usage (no one can keep a secret record to say – yeah we just let these nuts loose to achieve a more modest goal can they?) You can see it when you read the histories of foundations – the new generations have no idea why the older ones acted like they did, and take it for granted as totally sincere.

For a really good historical example of this all in action, see Prime Minister Peel’s usage of free trade Whigs to overcome the corn laws so as to foster industrialization. This is a clear case of using a bunch of crazies (the laissez-faire free trade advocates) to attack a part of the state apparatus to allow for pre-decided industrialization to occur. These crazies (who happened to be industrialists themselves) in turn worked to rile up worker strikes. The clear echo of this with the action of the elites in the civil rights era are not only striking, but obvious when you reject liberalism as valid and take up a reactionary view. This is civil rights “private funding” 18th century style. It is high-low again, and again.  The Whigs were total loonies and liars plain and simple, but the subsequent history is written with complete ignorance of what clearly happened. A healthy political arrangement would have included an executive which could have just made the strategic change in economic structure desired and allowed the elite to lead overtly and actively (shift import policy to make industrialization profitable), instead of fostering the free trade nuts, who are treated seriously even now. Think of the anti-corn law activists as the Martin Luther Kings of their day. Peel was the high, they were the rebellious tools. But England was clearly politically far gone by this point. So obviously laissez faire led to industrialization, it was the Whig that did it, just like the civil rights era was created by Martin Luther King.

There is no deep state as such, there is just the state operating though multiple convoluted mechanisms including going to war with itself. There is no state- civil society split, it is liberal nonsense, as the elite always rule actively, and do so either clearly and simply, or with a giant fraudulent edifice which is circumvented and added to with alternate means creating the need to foster crazies to get things done.

Institutional left wing violence

The Sacramento anti-facists clashes with white nationalists is shaping up to be a lesson in left wing violence’s usage by power in an unsecure political system.

I have been advised that the anti-fa protesters appears to be BAMN, of which Yvette Felarca is a member. But if you wish to donate to BAMN or find out more info, you need to email Yvette at For all intents and purposes we can really consider BAMN and the UEAA as a joint operation. The UEAA is the United for Equality and Affirmative Action Legal Defense Fund, whose funding page can be found here. You can see the usual array of Foundation funding and “NGO” funding.

Looking into their (UEAA’s) 990s in more detail, shows the following:

The fund seem to have started in 2001-2 (BAMN predates, and their connection began in 2003 – more on that later)

Their income is as follows:
2001 – $25,000 income
2002 -$58,000 income
2003 -$208,000 income ($154,000 spent on travel – strange, what happened here?)
2004 – $57,000 income
2005 – $0.00 income
2006 -$0.00 income
2007 – $0 income
2008 – $54,000 income
2009 – $51,000 income
2010 – $41,000 income
2011  – $32,000 income
2012  – $30,000 income
2013 – $42,000 income

all 990s can be downloaded here:

This organisation could not do anything at all without this money. The simple truth of this seems to get lost. The money literally brings it into being.

It is not clear who gave them the $208,000 dollars in 2003 which sticks out like a sore thumb. But it would seem the spending on travel was related to this 50,000 person march organised by BAMN, but funded by UEAA, over this supreme court case. It was not the Ford Foundation directly, nor was it the Kellogg Foundation directly that paid, but they may have indirectly. It would be interesting to find out where it came from.

Always look for the high in the clash.

Human Rights

I am currently reading a book on the human rights influence of the Ford Foundation, and it would appear that human rights as a concepts was not a result of Hitler and the Nazis, but was put into gear following the military coups in South America, primarily Pinochet, as well as the civil war in Argentina. It seems that Pinochet and the Argentinians were removing subversive intellectuals (always referred to as social scientists) from academia, the majority of who seem to have been Ford Foundation grantees. Once removed from academia, these social scientists found employment in private social science foundations (a total of 49 were made in Chile alone) funded by the Ford Foundation.

Chile’s economy was then passed to the Chigago boys whose training program was funded by the Ford Foundation (the Berkely Mafia and Indonesia is an interesting further area of study- the role of the foundations is almost total.)

The implication is that this conflict was a civil war between US centers of power, all funded from the same place, all pretty much pushing the same thing. Think of it as the right liberals advocating Strawberry flavored uber freedom liberalism, while the left advocates banana flavoured uber freedom liberalism, then they both go to war by proxy in Chile. The strawberry flavoured uber freedom liberalism got the upper hand, so the banana flavoured uber freedom liberalism vendors then went back to the drawing board  and developed a new flavour – chocolate chip flavoured uber freedom liberalism. All of this uber freedom liberalism are obviously totally different.  Chocolate chip flavoured liberalism is of course human rights. All the while both competing against vanilla flavored uber freedom liberalism from Russia.

So, the creator of this human rights push was a man named David Heaps, who pops up in the Congo with Lumumba. Who knows what skeletons show up there. He appears to have merely jerry rigged the whole thing together and then back dated the creation to the UN declaration of human rights. The book’s author is pretty confused about the lack of mention of human rights by Foundation texts until the 70’s despite the UNDHR being much older. I am not. The motivations for jerry rigging this into existence is clearly to give excuse for attacking “authoritarian” and “rightest” regimes.

The upshot of this is that human rights were clearly created in response to “rightist” success in South America. This makes human rights a power creation as a means to attack “the right.” Power above culture. As an added bonus, Korey’s book detailing all this was funded by the Ford Foundation. You couldn’t make it up.

The foundations funded “freedom” and “liberalism” which meant they went to civil war with themselves. Right liberals versus left liberals.

Also, the amount of grassroots level development of culture appears to be extremely limited. It seems to all come from power with minor exceptions. Money is the logistic backbone of culture. This is extremely problematic for liberal theory’s intellectual validity; lethal to it in my opinion.

Added: This was brought to my attention. The time line for human rights matches with the Foundations funding glut. An interesting study would be to match Foundation funding and interests with the trends in this graph.


Brexit- to where?

The political discourse around the UK exit from the EU is fundamentally shot. It’s a case of watching various groups throwing disconnected slogans based on narratives that have been built up based on nonsense and political conflict. At no point in any of this is a sober analysis of the historical context in play. But this is not surprising. This is the same with all political discourse. Even those areas claiming to be way out of the mainstream.

To start with, what exactly is the EU? Well, back in the mist of history, it seems that the EU was largely a US and UK instigated political organisation funded heavily by US foundation and the US secret services to bring US style progressive democracy to the European continent. That they were  avenues by which the US elite enacted proactive policy outside of the formal structure of liberal democratic governance should be no surprise to my readers, in fact it should be expected in line with De Jouvenel.

As with pretty much every aspect of modern culture, funding from these same areas was super charged with the geopolitical necessity of out-liberalising the Soviet Union; or did you think the Soviet Union and communism were really different from Liberalism? jokes on you. The list of cultural creations funded by foundations and the CIA include at last count: modern art, most European intellectuals such as George Orwell, Isaiah Berlin, etc, feminism, human rights, international relations, behaviourism. It wouldn’t surprise me if it turned out Scoody Doo was a CIA/ Foundation enterprise at this point.

The main driver for the instigation of the EU was the American Committee on United Europe, which was run by OSS/CIA elite, who were also connected with the foundation running elite (same people.) The wiki page notes (brace yourselves):

“The structure of the organisation was outlined in early summer of 1948 by Donovan and Allen Welsh Dulles by then also reviewing the organization of theCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA).[2] in response to assistance requests by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi () and Winston Churchill.

Declassified American government documents have shown that the ACUE was an important early funder of both the European Movement and the European Youth Campaign. The ACUE itself received funding from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations.

The EU then, is an Anglo-American creation, but this is obfuscated by the political lie machine that is democracy and the ideological battles of those operating in democracy. The sins of liberalism have been cast onto the EU structure, and it has been denounced despite being a liberal production par excellence.

So, given this sordid little history, what was voted on with the referendum? Quite frankly it was a vote to remove political control from a supranational liberal/progressive organisation created and controlled by the anglo-elite, to only political control by a national liberal/progressive organisation (UK parliament) controlled by the anglo-elite.

Now forget all of this history, and remember, evil grubby collectivist communists the grew from Russia and infiltrated the EU are the real problem,and totally different from liberalism. ROFL.

Added: “The history of the ACUE can also be interpreted as part of what the late Christopher Thorne termed America as ‘an idea nation’ exporting its values and political culture.

Whigs and the creation of black racial liberalism

From merely the introduction to the book ‘The Ford Foundation, black power, and the reinvention of racial liberalism’


Ford_Foundation_WhigsThat constitution worked wonders for stopping them. Oops! no it didn’t. They must have been communist controlled from the Kremlin as well…oops again! they were arch liberal Whigs who believed “wholeheartedly in corporate capitalism.”

The book is shaping up to be a surreal piece of work, with the clear detailing of the creation of black power by Ford juxtapositioned with the absolute certainty that black power was still a natural and inevitable awakening of the black population. The absolute certainty of racial conflict and white power oppression theory exhibited by the author despite the evidence contradicting it that they themselves are supplying is incredible.

Carlyean veracity

Land and his anarcho-capitalism, blockchain governance, Randian super hero, AI governance gang and their collection of thinking which boils down to old leftism with a sci-fi twist is utterly unconnected to Moldbug’s arguments except as dissent – that much must be obvious by now.

Hestia refuses to release a coherent statement of what neoreaction is, because they to. with minimal exception, are old school leftists and dissent from Moldbug.

So I will call everyone’s bluff; explain yourselves, because it looks to me as if you are all left wing anti-reactionaries.. There is nothing reactionary in any of it, from Land to Hestia.

So again, I will call the bluff of those within neoreaction. Explain yourselves, because it is time for some Carlyean veracity here.

Neoreaction makes no sense.

In case it isn’t painfully obvious at this point, De Jouvenel based analysis clearly identifies the left wing as being the elite in society. The elite will always be the elite, unless you subscribe to genetic denialism and general anti-racism. The prevalence of nobility in Marxism, Liberalism and other branches of leftism are sufficient evidence of this. In a secure governmental system not made up of “checks and balances” and other imperium in imperio devices these people would be formal nobility, able to govern through judgement and custom.

With imperium in imperio governance systems such as republicanism and communism (variant of republicanism) This elite is unable to govern in a sane manner. Instead they are subject to systemic incentives that favour the usage of extra-republican measures to rule. This manifests in such things as the usage of private fortunes to act in a proactive manner which the republican system “halts”, just see what the elites do in this system from recorded examples, not from sterile hilariously wrong conclusions taken from liberalism starting points (I am thinking of Ayn Randism escape/exit nonsense.)

To make matters worse, this divided governance structure dopes the government with a mixture of hallucinogens and steroids which makes this elite hyper psychotic, and hyper aggressive in pursuing battle against these blocks to their rule. This is where we see modern culture, this is where we see anti-racism which can only be caste in a coherent light by reference to this battle to overcome the blocks on governance. First abolitionism and its usage against federal blocks, then the civil rights era and its usage as a means to circumvent the remaining shreds of constitutional blocks on governance. Each time, the motive for circumventing this blocks becomes more and more surreal as the previous hysterical psychosis becomes ingrained in the power structure. Each round of psychosis part sincenre and part cynical, but no one maintains a record of this, no one lives long enough to be able to tie the threads together, instead the shape of the system is king and each round thinks they are innovating the process anew.

The elite are then augmented by the low within society whom they rile up and organise against the blocks. The civil rights era example of this is invaluable. The worse these people act, the more power this supplies to the elite against the blocks. High and low.

This makes it clear that the right is the middle, which in a republicanism structure devotes itself to maintaining blocks, thereby completing the left-right spectrum. The right is continually pruned of anything too extreme to republicanism by default. The laws of the republican structure, as well as pressure from the elite residing in the left wing part of society bounds it in most cases.

Right and left, as we can then see, are symptomatic of republican government. Not biological, not personality based.

Now, at this point we can go from descriptive to prescriptive and make comment. Firstly, you have two broad options for achieving a rollback of the degeneracy of the imperium in imperio system.  The first is to disregard the system as a cause of this disgusting state of affairs, in which case alternative causes are sought. Just look at the state of what is termed the right for the profusion of theories put forward which completely ignore the system itself. From Nazism, to conservatism, to Alt-Rightism, and now Neoreaction (a confused subsection of the Alt-right, differentiated by nothing more than posturing and anti-humanism). The process in this situation is to invent a platform of things which “should” be done and then push for success within the imperium in imperio system with the implicit assumption that new laws will just be implemented to make things “right wing.” Maybe this would work with extreme effort for a generation at best, maybe not even that. The system’s own telos will then take over and the need to engage in degeneracy to overcome blocks to what the elite feel needs to be done will be engaged, again, part in sincerity, and part in cynicism. You are on the road to degeneracy again, or rather, progress and the march of history as those empiricist Whigs will tell you with a straight face.

The other option is to reject this imperium in imperio structure. That was surely Neoreaction before it got taken over by the alt-right (or should we say alt-left?)

Should the anti-humanist alt-rightist occupying the name really hold claim to it? Does that make any sense?

Logistics of ideas

The success of any given idea or general culture within society is a function of the logistical support which sustains and allows the culture to exist and propagate. It is also bound by the power operating with that society, and what it allows and does not allow. This means power is above culture.

Drawing this out, this means that all culture is subject to its logistical support, its value to whoever is supplying the logistical support, and the power within whose realm it exists – and not a direct function of its truth value.

When approaching the question of politics and sociology proper, the general underlying assumption is that the exact opposite is the case. Further to this, another underlying assumption is that political structures themselves are neutral, and in no way influence matters. As such, it is assumed that a state being republican or monarchical, or whatever has no influence on the culture of the society. This is especially the case with republicanism, as it is assumed that this framework can be utilised to implement any political platform which one decides to develop if the people vote such a way.

The De Jouvenel insight tells us that all of this is wrong. Instead political structures through the ingrained political conflicts they incorporate create engines of culture that promote equality for no good reason beyond furthering the aims of the power center. That these systems operate over multiple generations, and with multiple unconnected actor, yet end up in the same direction should be the first indication that Jouvenel is correct.

The theory is backed up by numerous observable examples, which is something no other political theory of modernity has been able to do.

Lets imagine we found an individual who had sufficient intelligence but who had no memory or knowledge of modern society at all, a person who had suffered some exotic bout of amnesia, and was completely blank with regard to politics and history. Then imagine we supplied him with the fundamentals of De Jouvenel’s observation; He could deduce from this that society would go into unimaginable degradation and squalor, motivated by internal conflict created by systems designed to contain imperium in imperio. Such a person if then supplied with the revalation that mass immigration and multiculturalism was motivated by a desire to “rub the rights nose in it” would be unsurprised in the least. In fact he would declare it obvious. This same person schooled and proficient in De Jouvenel’s theory and the implications, would point out any society divided by republicanism and any blocks (imperium in imperio) would divide into left and right, with the left being the elite using the low within society as a means to undermine the right (the rest of society) and govern as their position in society dictates. This same person would point out that such a left would tend to extreme excess in a laser like focus to defeat the right who were in their way. They would also be able to predict that each generation would become more extreme, and more hysterical in the fight against the right.

Such a person could also apply this understanding to the worst excess of the Totalitarian governments and come to the conclusion that hysterical fights against internal enemies created by imperium in imperio led to ever greater degrees of violence and squalor devoid of all reason, except if viewed from a prism of internal conflict.

From all of these conclusions, this person uninfected by modernity and its insipid lies could deduce that these internal conflicts dictate what culture is within the realms in which these conflicts occur, and that this culture (which includes customs, ideas, norms) would not be underlined with anything of note except the requirements of these conflicts.

Culture in societies with imperium in imperio governmental systems would then be observably increasingly incoherent, lack underlying logic (except again with reference to the left-right battle,) and be productive of ideas that were unable to predict anything of value (except the left-right conflict.)

Societies with a control on these conflicts on the other hand would be conducive to production of cultural and ideas which were coherent, intelligent and productive. It is only when the fighting (politics) is silent that any precious reason can prevail.

Viewing what the left themselves write and explain as their motivations for their action, we see clear as day that the battle of left and right is the motivating factor behind their actions. Not value or accuracy. It simply is not viable to claim otherwise when there is such an easy to access surfeit of evidence proving this. Typically “empiricist” and “positivists” social science cannot see this. Typically these “empiricist” and “positivists” positions were created by the left (the elite) as part of their “scientific” war against the right. I am finding that there is a wealth of record proving this. So again, we have significant schools of thought created as a result of the left-right battle, and which are then immune from accuracy and reality as long as society maintains.

Once you start looking for it, it shows up everywhere. Take behaviouralism, or “empirical social science”:

“One of the most given explanations for the rise of behavioralism has been a reference to the role of foundations (2), mainly the emergence of the Ford Foundation as an important provider of funds (Dahl 1961; Somit and Tanenhaus 1982; Seidelman and Harpham 1985: 154). Many have even argued that the whole concept of behavioralism came into use only because of the policy of foundations (Geiger 1988: 329). And Bernard Berelson seems to agree:

“What happened to give rise to the term? The key event was the development of a Ford Foundation program in this field. The program was initially designated ‘individual behavior and human relations’ but it soon became known as the behavioral sciences program and, indeed, was officially called that within the foundation. It was the foundation’s administrative action, then, that led directly to the term and to the concept of this particular field of study.” (Berelson 1968: 42) (3)

The foundation money created also a self-generating process which led to the recruitment of behavioralists. Because behavioralist projects were funded better than traditional ones, there were a larger supply of behavioralists up for recruitment than others (Hacker 1959: 39-40). It is no wonder that some of the key practioners of behavioralism have been willing to admit, that “it was almost single-handedly the Ford Foundation that did so much to legitimate empirical social science” (Warren E. Miller in Baer, et al., eds. 1991: 242).

David Easton has argued that “in its orgins it may well be that the concept can be considered an accident” (Easton 1965: 12). Easton explains this accident with the convergence of the founding of the Behavioral Sciences Division of the Ford Foundation and the story of some congressmen attacking social sciences as socialist sciences (Easton 1965: 22; cf. Ball 1993).

Foundations played a key role in financing research at the beginning of the 1950s, but the Ford Foundation terminated its behavioral program in 1957. One of the reasons was the attack towards foundations. There had already been the House of Representatives Select Committee (Cox Committee) investigating tax-exempt foundations in 1952, and the foundations were increasingly criticized as being too liberal (actually it was in the hearings of Cox Committee when social sciences were termed as socialist sciences).

After the foundations began to diminish their financing of the behavioral sciences, the National Science Foundation stepped in. The original bill for the establishment of a National Science Foundation, which was given to the Congress in 1945, contained the establishment of a Social Science Division. Social Sciences came under attack from politicians, however, already then, because some congressmen saw them representing values foreign to Anmericans. Social scientists counterattacked with rhetorics stressing the values of science, neutral pursuance of truth, and distancing themselves from social reform. All the values that had helped to win the Second World War (Ball 1993). But to no avail. The National Science Foundation was established in 1950 without the Division of Social Sciences.

The Foundation began to search for opportunies to finance the social sciences, however, already in 1953. In 1958 it founded the Office of Social Sciences, which was changed into the Division alredy a year later (Lyons 1969: 272). Social sciences were accepted by politicians at last.

As these examples show, political science was deeply dependent on the state of democracy in society. A general political climate had an impact also on individual scholars and universities as organizations.”

This tells use empirical social science was funded by foundations, motivated by anti-rightwingism and fueled by zero truth. It describes nothing, predicts nothing, and is utterly worthless. Yet it prevails.

Thanks to De Jouvenel I can explain this all without reverting to mysticism about the “currents of modernity” or conspiracy theories. Imperium in imperio societies are engines of fraud and psychosis. The structure of government is as decisive as can be imagined.