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 yvette.felarca@ueaa.net. 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) charitylook.org/united-for-equality-and-affirmative-action-legal-defense-fund-383626850/

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: projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/383626850

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.

chart

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’

McBundy

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.