I guess we can properly call the Fronte Nationale fascist now

Mrs Le Pen has filled the vacuum. She has abandoned the free-market views of her father, party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, who once espoused “Reaganomics” and vowed to shrink the state.
She is eating into the Socialist base from the Left, vowing to defend the French welfare model against the “neo-liberals” and to defeat the “dictatorship of the markets”. She calls globalisation the “law of the jungle” that allows multinationals to play off cheap labour in China against French labour
Her plans include a national industrial strategy that swats aside EU competition law, as well as a cut in the retirement age to 60, and a “realignment of taxation against capital and in favour of workers”.
Pierre Gattaz, head of the employers federation MEDEF, calls it a radical agenda stolen from the Left that would destroy France. Yet it clearly makes a heady brew for voters when mixed with nationalist identity politics.

Because that is pretty much fascism. Nationalist identity politics along with idiot socialism.

In French terms, Poujadism perhaps, but in the larger sense, fascism.

52 thoughts on “I guess we can properly call the Fronte Nationale fascist now”

  1. Not surprising though. The State (whether national or EU level) handled the Crash in 2008 so hopelessly badly, clearly stating that the banks come first, that an economic-left reaction is inevitable and rational.

    People were left in no doubt that something is terribly wrong economically. They have the wrong answers, but they are asking the right questions.

  2. As it tries to gather socially conservative working class votes from Labour, UKIP could well move in a similar direction.

  3. Its Front National please.

    It is little noted that she is the only one to speak against the police state the socialists (close cousins to the fascists, lest we forget) are putting in place at the moment, saying with reason that there are enough laws already but the lack of willingness to implement them makes them useless.

  4. I expect her success has little to do with economics and a lot to do with the fact that Islamist have twice committed massacres in Paris which the rest of the political establishment tripped over themselves to state had nothing to do with Islam. We can probably expect to see a lot more of this in Europe in the coming years: populist, wrong-headed economics brought in by a politician whose immigration policies strike a chord with a population who is fed up of being dismissed as racist.

  5. Wow! It reads likes Ritchie Bingo.

    Add in the anti-immigrant agenda and you’ve got…Colin Hines.

    So, we’ve had the Green New Deal, Green QE, Peoples’ QE, Climate QE. What do we call the next great idea, Volks’ QE, the Economic Final Solution?

  6. The rotten poison of statism in general and socialism permeates all society. What else is the daft cow going to declare–laissez-faire? In a society with its brains /gumption rotted out by welfare and state schools and bullshit media peddling the same message “Big Daddy will take care of you”?

    If she can put a stop to Islamic antics and import in France that will be something. But the snake of statism/socialism will have only been scotched in one of its gambits, not killed. She and her crew are –like BluLab over here–an arm of that very evil. An anti-Islamic arm in LePens case but an arm none the less.

    If not death by islam our end will be brought nearer by some other means. Death by the collapse of corporate socialism (because of the socialism). Deceitfully labelled “free-market policies” and thus allowing even more monsterous and evil leftists access to the power they crave. Say Corbyn and his gang.

  7. “What else is the daft cow going to declare–laissez-faire?”

    Should read:

    “What else is the daft cow going to do –declare laissez-faire?”

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    And yet the Front National and the pretty Le Pens are not the problem.

    Sad that it has come to this but they really are the lesser evil

  9. What exactly are the arguments in favour of globalisation?People keep saying “Get out of Europe and then we can trade with all the low wage economies in the Far East” .What’s the advantage of that? We get cheap goods ,then loads of people get made redundant as factories ship out East. I blame the public schools in UK for producing a stupid ruling-class that just blunders on.

  10. “What’s the advantage of that? We get cheap goods”

    That *is* the point. That’s the point of trade. To get stuff cheaper than we can make it ourselves. True of the individual, the household, the village, town, county, tribe, clan, company or country.

  11. As SMFS says, we are now in the realm of lesser evils.

    Put it this way, I’m a Libertarian. But I’d frankly rather live under Attlee’s post-war dispensation of Gas Boards and Coal Boards than what we have now.

  12. IanB

    Put it this way, I’m a Libertarian. But I’d frankly rather live under Attlee’s post-war dispensation of Gas Boards and Coal Boards than what we have now.

    Your second sentence evacuates the former of meaning. Seriously, you would rather live under the most socialist government the UK has ever had? And you call yourself a libertarian? You are perverse and deranged. By any measure, individual liberty is greater now than it has ever been before on this island.

  13. Define your version of “liberty” please Theo.

    I don’t agree about Atlee. People hark back to nostalgia. Atlee was the first full on socialist parasite and thus his crew appeared far more successful than they were. They could parasite off the pre-existing success of the market. Of the general success and stability ( wars notwithstanding) of the past. Such was the “golden age” of the NHS–when it appeared for a few years– to the faithful at least– that it might actually work. Altho’ they didn’t build a single new hospital from 1948 to 1963/4.

  14. By any measure, individual liberty is greater now than it has ever been before on this island.

    Well, I beg to differ. We have in some respects more economic liberty, though even that is counterbalanced by a level of scrutiny of our bank accounts and financial affairs etc unimaginable in the 1950s. In nearly all respects we are a less free country than we were when I was a boy in the 1970s.

    Simply put, given a choice between the Old Left- the Christian Socialism of Attlee et al- or the New Left’s cultural marxism and invasion into every aspect of life, I’d choose the Old. I’d prefer neither, but as I said I was choosing the lesser evil, since “no evil” never seems to be on the table.

  15. It seems to be saying that she will eventually find an economic policy stupid enough to appeal to the workers.

    “in the larger sense, fascism”: I don’t think so, unless she argues for what T Blair used to call “the big tent”. That really is the kernel of fascism.

  16. The bottom line for me is that all these things- fascism, socialism, social democracy, corporatism, progressivism, one nation conservatism etc are variations on a theme, sharing various components, and the labels are largely useless. For instance, Mussolini’s fascism contained a very strong element of national greatness through imperial conquest, and I don’t see that in the FN.

  17. “By any measure, individual liberty is greater now than it has ever been before on this island.”

    What i want to know is which island our Theo’s living on. Must be a very small one.

  18. Well Theophrastus has chosen to stay and live on that island where the economy is strong, the world and his dog are trying to get in and things are arseholes are free to blog shite like fascism, social democracy and one nation conservatism being variatioms on a theme (for fuck’s sake). He sounds like a successful person living on a successful island and not a failure who buggered off to Unemployedland, masking his failure behind a ‘lifestyle choice’.

  19. Seriously? When we see around the woeld what fascism is.like and what it does, are we so cracked that we genuinely don’t think Britain is a free country?

  20. That’s not fascism. At least, not in any sense that makes the term useful.

    FN aren’t hugely authoritarian (at least no more than any French party) which is a sine qua non of authentic fascism. In fact you need personal authoritarianism — a caudillo, duce or fuhrer as a starting point.

    Fascism also prioritizes economics lower than other aspects of a country’s life. Purity of religion, purity of race, imperial power, etc are meant to build to better people who are above mere money, I just don’t see that in Le Pen, who is all for improving the physical welfare of the French and not very much into some uber “pure” Frenchman or Frenchwoman who is above economic life.

    She’s just a populist Nationalist with shitty economics. Since France is chock full of populist Leftists with shitty economics, I fail to see what all the fuss is about her rise.

  21. The Front National are left wing surely? At least on immigration. I’m going with the view that right wing means fewer government committees setting rules on who gets the desirability points to come, and fewer border officials to check you’re the right sort of newcomer.
    The Front National seem keen on more government for other things too.

  22. “Looks like Ironman has forgotten to take his meds again”

    I’ll take it from that you won’t even attempt to account for your silly comment. I wholeheartedly agree with your decision.

  23. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “Theophrastus has chosen to stay and live on that island where the economy is strong, the world and his dog are trying to get in and things are arseholes are free to blog shite like fascism, social democracy and one nation conservatism being variatioms on a theme (for fuck’s sake).”

    So he has. Except the economy is not strong. Notice that the right of ar$eholes to blog what they like has come under attack with calls for TW to be regulated. People have spent time in the cells for what they have written on blog posts. Which was not the case under Atlee.

    “He sounds like a successful person living on a successful island and not a failure who buggered off to Unemployedland, masking his failure behind a ‘lifestyle choice’.”

    He does, doesn’t he? Such middle class snobbery though. I like it. Rarely are you so obviously non-PC.

    Ironman – “Seriously? When we see around the woeld what fascism is.like and what it does, are we so cracked that we genuinely don’t think Britain is a free country?”

    Logic was never your strong point but no one has said that Britain is not a free country and no one has compared it to Fascism except you. What Ian B said is that it is not as free as it was in the 70s. He implied it is not as free as it was under Atlee. The first is obviously true. The second is quite likely to be true too.

    You just don’t care because you support throwing people in jail for their Facebook posts and tweets.

  24. “What exactly are the arguments in favour of globalisation?People keep saying “Get out of Europe and then we can trade with all the low wage economies in the Far East” .What’s the advantage of that? We get cheap goods ,then loads of people get made redundant as factories ship out East. I blame the public schools in UK for producing a stupid ruling-class that just blunders on.”

    DBCR for one is falling under the Pen’s spell.

  25. DBC Reed: I blame the public schools in UK for producing a stupid ruling-class that just blunders on

    Is there a tag that DBCR could use to make his posts appear in sepia?

  26. An interesting question though.

    DBCR, you need to be more specific though.

    a) Should countries not trade at all, or should there only be restrictions where we can produce the same goods? So, for example, we could continue to welcome foreign oranges as we can’t produce them ourselves, but cars and computers would have to be made in Britain.

    b) What about competition within the UK?

    c) It’s not actually true that trade has led to fewer jobs, even if many jobs have gone. See also the Luddites.

    d) A thought experiment. Assume that all nations catch up, that all have reached a similar level prosperity and technological and political progress. (We all want that, don’t we?). There would still be competition. Poorly-run companies would still be at risk from foreigners. Do we still prop-up failing businesses? Therein lies your answer.

  27. SMFS

    “What Ian B said is that it is not as free as it was in the 70s.”

    Yes yes, we know that’s true, but….

    “with calls for TW to be regulated”

    I wasn’t aware of that – can we elaborate please? Seriously, is this for real..??

  28. Are we less free? I couldn’t say, but to balance some of the comments above, some things you couldn’t do when I was born in the 60’s:

    – Own a phone
    – Have gay sex (legally)
    – Own a wide variety of censored / banned publications available now
    – Shop on a Sunday (licensing laws were also draconian)

    On the other hand, you didn’t have to pretend to like football then either.

  29. “- fascism, socialism, social democracy, corporatism, progressivism, one nation conservatism etc are variations on a theme” says IanB

    “Britain is not a free country and no one has compared it to Fascism except you” says SMFS to me.

    SMFS is a Thick.Racist.Prick says I.

  30. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “SMFS is a Thick.Racist.Prick says I.”

    Perhaps. But you will notice that your quotation does not actually call Britain a Fascist country.

    But nice try. Thanks for playing.

  31. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Are we less free? I couldn’t say, but to balance some of the comments above, some things you couldn’t do when I was born in the 60’s:”

    – Own a phone

    I was born in the 50s and we were hardly wealthy middle class, my father and his brother being the first in the family to manage to get out of the slums of Bradford, and we had a phone in the 60s, it was eye wateringly expensive to use though but it didn’t come with GCHQ and NSA hoovering up everything they could find.

    – Have gay sex (legally)

    True but by then it was just waiting for politicians to catch up with social attitudes.

    – Own a wide variety of censored / banned publications available now

    They still circulated though, I remember seeing some pretty hardcore Danish porn in the late 60s, and again it was just waiting for politicians to catch up.

    – Shop on a Sunday (licensing laws were also draconian)

    Sunday trading laws were odd, you could buy a Playboy but not a bible. Also, where we lived we had quite a few shops open on Sundays because Muslims were allowed to trade. This led to some odd counter measures and I remember one store making the news by giving away a sofa with a bag of potatoes.

    “On the other hand, you didn’t have to pretend to like football then either.”

    No, but it helped where I lived as everyone played/watched football or Rugby League.

  32. IanB

    The Attlee government was a time of exchange controls, rationing, soviet-style nationalisation (which damaged the UK economy for decades), relatively few choices and opportunities, and stifling social conformity. For a libertarian to say that he would prefer to live then rather than now is weird. Even with all the problems this sceptred isle has today, life is freer – economically, financially, socially – and more opportunity-rich for more people than ever before.

    In nearly all respects we are a less free country than we were when I was a boy in the 1970s.

    So it is the 1970s now, is it? Your claim initially was about the Attlee period.

    given a choice between the Old Left- the Christian Socialism of Attlee et al- or the New Left’s cultural marxism and invasion into every aspect of life, I’d choose the Old. I’d prefer neither, but as I said I was choosing the lesser evil…

    Back to Attlee, I see. The choice is not limited to Old Left vs New Left. What we have now – for all its deficiencies — is neither.

    The bottom line for me is that all these things- fascism, socialism, social democracy, corporatism, progressivism, one nation conservatism etc are variations on a theme…

    That is crass. You are either unable or too lazy to distinguish between them; so you conclude they are all the same. But then you do favour simplistic, reductive explanations; and this lumping together of all ideologies enables you to interpret everything in the light of your ‘theory’ that puritanical progressivism has overwhelmed our world. Like all single-level, uni-causal explanations (see Marx, Freud, Dawkins etc), it is at best only partly true. If that.

  33. Ecksy

    Define your version of “liberty” please Theo.

    Very briefly, liberty or freedom is a triadic relation. The freedom of x from y to do F. The left focuses on ‘freedom from’ (hunger, unemployment, poverty…); the right focuses on ‘freedom to’ which is the absence of constraint.

  34. bind

    “Sunday trading laws were odd, you could buy a Playboy but not a bible”

    Sunday is for Bishop-bashers not bible-bashers. I think they said…

    That’s still the case in Guernsey, or was as of last week. Garden centres had to rope off half it’s shelves on a Sunday. For instance, plants and flowers in plant pots prohibited, plants in a vase allowed.

  35. Theo: “The Attlee government was a time of exchange controls, rationing, soviet-style nationalisation (which damaged the UK economy for decades), relatively few choices and opportunities, and stifling social conformity.”

    Nationalisation is down to Atlee etc. The rest might just have something to do with the war and pre-existing attitudes. Choices and opportunities depend on what you class as same. You could then still chuck your job in and go to the colonies should you want adventure. You could have still kept a gun in your drawer in case thieving or violent elements decided to visit you. And “social conformity” has not vanished–it has just changed the direction of oppression.

    “Even with all the problems this sceptred isle has today, life is freer – economically, financially, socially – and more opportunity-rich for more people than ever before.”

    Economically/financially–how so? There is a vast amount of state-manufactured cheap currency about but if you think that is a good thing then you surely will lose those precious investments of yours come the day.

    Socially–you are free to endorse leftist approved sex antics . But don’t try to express an interest in –say BDSM or rape fantasies–non left approved desires. Not if you value the quiet enjoyment of your life. Indeed don’t express ANY non or anti-left opinion outside forums like TW without expecting trouble–Tyson Fury ring any bells?

    Expect also that a woman can cheat on contraception and force you to pay years of support for an unwanted child. Or decide to abort your child–regardless of what you want or if you are willing to parent the child yourself–you don’t even get an opinion on it. Or report you for non-existent and certainly unprovable alleged sex crimes and have the state co-operate in arranging for you to die in jail regardless of your extreme age or ill-health.

    “Opportunity-rich”–is a particular joke for most people. Taxes, regulations and inflation insure that the little people can’t get ahead. Get an education–in debt management and leftist conformity–at a Uni near you. My Dad could provide a modest but increasingly well-off future for a housewife and two kids on a draughtsman’s wage in the 60s. Now two working parents struggle to provide for two kids. I’m sure life is full of oppo for well-off, probably well-connected BluLab types like yourself Theo–know the right people and all that. But if think today has better opportunities for most ordinary people let alone the underclass you have no fucking clue. Materially we are better-off yes–but because of economic trickery–money-printing etc–not because of the slow and steady accumulation of capital that is the real engine of progress. Soon our house of cards will fall. Reality is not a bad thing and afterwards we can go forwards again but our present “prosperity” is a very unsafe illusion.

    ” The choice is not limited to Old Left vs New Left. What we have now – for all its deficiencies — is neither.”

    It is a mixed bag of leftist shite larded with middle/upper class snobbery. Even that twat Corbyn is a middle-class leftist prick. It is all bad.

    “That is crass. You are either unable or too lazy to distinguish between them; so you conclude they are all the same. But then you do favour simplistic, reductive explanations; and this lumping together of all ideologies enables you to interpret everything in the light of your ‘theory’ that puritanical progressivism has overwhelmed our world. Like all single-level, uni-causal explanations (see Marx, Freud, Dawkins etc), it is at best only partly true. If that.”

    Partial truth still beats the almost complete absence of same. What do you mean by simplistic Theo? That matters are too complex for plebs like us to follow ? Ah once again the pale lavender-scented piss stench of traditional Tory snobbery. “Its complicated so leave it to your betters” is not an argument Theo. You are strong on assertions but notably weak of references to back up those assertions.

    As for your definition of freedom, it is not a bad one. I should however have asked for more specifics of how exactly this is now a freer society than before. My mistake.

  36. BiND,
    “– Own a phone

    I was born in the 50s and we were hardly wealthy middle class, my father and his brother being the first in the family to manage to get out of the slums of Bradford, and we had a phone in the 60s,”

    The point is you couldn’t own a phone.

  37. Expect also that a woman can cheat on contraception and force you to pay years of support for an unwanted child.

    She can do that even if it’s not your kid!

  38. Mr Ecks is SMFS.

    Tim

    “That *is* the point. That’s the point of trade. To get stuff cheaper than we can make it ourselves. True of the individual, the household, the village, town, county, tribe, clan, company or country”

    I don’t buy that at all. Individuals are motivated by a whole raft of things that can’t be ascribed to a country.

    Your analysis is hopelessly short-term.

  39. Arnald:”Your analysis is hopelessly short-term.”

    Even were that true, given the death and economic disaster spread by socialism short-term is the only analysis to go with. Once all you bastards are as dead as your victims mankind can really begin to build for the future.

    Once again the SMFS thought-worm returns. Considering the bizarrely varying nature of your posts–suggesting that there maybe several assorted parrots fighting for a perch within the bird-cage you call a mind–you would do better to figure out who the hell you are before making numb-nutted declarations about others.

  40. The absolute brutal butchery of statism/ socialism and its allies everywhere. Starting with Gurn-Sea.

    After that I’m content to leave it to the market. Unlike you I don’t have any desire to force my ideas on anyone. Except those who are trying to force their ideas on me.

  41. Ecksy

    Nationalisation is down to Atlee etc. The rest might just have something to do with the war and pre-existing attitudes.
    That’s intellectually dishonest. You can’t pick and choose what to take account of in the Attlee period. I could offer all sorts of mitigating factors for illiberal aspects of contemporary life in the UK, but you would rightly object.

    Choices and opportunities depend on what you class as same.[sic]

    The average school leaver today has far more choice of occupation and training than his equivalent in 1945-50. So he has more opportunity….If you work hard at school and subsequently, you can improve yourself — and more so than under Attlee.

    You could have still kept a gun in your drawer in case thieving or violent elements decided to visit you.

    Look up the 1937 Firearms Act: it is not as liberal as you imagine. Also, in 1937, the Home Secretary instructed Chief Constables not to grant a firearms licence on the grounds of self-defence.

    And “social conformity” has not vanished–it has just changed the direction of oppression.

    Social norms in the 1940s and early 1950s were much more rigid than today. A young woman going out alone, for example, would often set tongues wagging. And to be homosexual was illegal: remember Turing’s (d.1954) hormone treatment? Agreed, we must not be complacent about social pressures today: PC-speak, attitudes towards Trump and Fury, and the antics of the Twatter mob, concern me greatly.(But, I’m afraid, if you ‘educate’ large numbers of people beyond the level of their intelligence, this is what happens.)

    Economically/financially–how so?
    We are richer, much richer. Fiat currency or no.

    Socially–you are free to endorse leftist approved sex antics . But don’t try to express an interest in –say BDSM or rape fantasies–non left approved desires.

    I had assumed that BDSM and rape-fantasies were more than adequately catered for on the web. I gather I might be taking some risks with the law if you asked me to nail your dick to plank; but, on reflection, I’d take the risk in the circumstances – just for you!

    Expect also that a woman can cheat on contraception and force you to pay years of support for an unwanted child.

    How is this a diminution of freedom? Just be careful whom you shag. And wear a condom.

    Or decide to abort your child–regardless of what you want or if you are willing to parent the child yourself–you don’t even get an opinion on it.

    Abortion was illegal until 1967. So, arguably, freedom has increased in this respect since Attlee’s day. If you don’t want a woman to abort your potential child, marry her.

    “Opportunity-rich”–is a particular joke for most people. Taxes, regulations and inflation insure that the little people can’t get ahead.

    Nonsense on stilts. For a start, inflation is nearly zero. Certainly, we could do with fewer regulations and lower taxes, but new businesses are opening all the time, often by people who left school with few qualifications. Last year, a young barber opened his own salon in the town where I live. Within three months, he was employing three other people. Another local lad who came from a violent underclass family has trained as an electrician and now has two apprentices, is married and has a child. And so on and on.

    Get an education–in debt management and leftist conformity–at a Uni near you.

    Then don’t do a crap course at a crap university. Particularly when there so many other opportunities…

    My Dad could provide a modest but increasingly well-off future for a housewife and two kids on a draughtsman’s wage in the 60s. Now two working parents struggle to provide for two kids.

    If two working parents struggle to provide for two kids, perhaps they should have had only one? And those two working parents doubtless spend a lot of money on things that your pater would probably have thought inessential. That said, they are richer, healthier, better housed, and so freer – particularly the wife – than your parents probably were.

    But if think today has better opportunities for most ordinary people let alone the underclass you have no fucking clue. [sic]

    The underclass are the parasitic product of a socialism that wants to keep them dependent on the state’s largesse. Nobody despises the underclass more than those folk from humble origins who have seized some of the myriad opportunities available.

    What do you mean by simplistic Theo?

    Single-level, uni-causal explanations, which by their nature lack nuance. In particular, much of all-embracing, pan-galactic, simple-minded wibble that Ian B comes out with.

    That matters are too complex for plebs like us to follow ? Ah once again the pale lavender-scented piss stench of traditional Tory snobbery.

    You and a few others around here seem obsessed with social class. Why? What gave you that cosmic chip on your shoulder? Have you failed to achieve all you wanted or thought you deserved in life, and so want to blame someone middle class or Tory…? I have had many advantages in life, but I have also experienced inverted snobbery from the chippy for my accent and education. I have never let it bother me; and I have also made a point of employing any able soul, regardless of background, providing they were willing to work hard.

    You are strong on assertions but notably weak of references to back up those assertions.

    Self-awareness is not your point, is it? Do you ever read your own fact-free rants?

  42. Theo:”You can’t pick and choose what to take account of in the Attlee period.”

    So Atlee is responsible for everything he is contemporary with?. That is flaky even for you.

    “The average school leaver today has far more choice of occupation and training than his equivalent in 1945-50. So he has more opportunity….If you work hard at school and subsequently, you can improve yourself — and more so than under Attlee.”

    Technology yeah–you can be in IT now and other fields that didn’t exist then. Nothing much to do with civil liberties.

    “Look up the 1937 Firearms Act: it is not as liberal as you imagine. Also, in 1937, the Home Secretary instructed Chief Constables not to grant a firearms licence on the grounds of self-defence.”

    So there were no guns in draws in this country at that time? And were many heavy, life-ruining sentences handed out to many “respectable” people under the 1937 Act?. Respectable people who might be found with a gun NOT being used in the commission of a crime. The answer is no.To be expected because gun control was brought in due to Tory fears that the working class returning from WW1 might get bolshie ideas. Gun control was to reduce their chances of doing anything about such ideas. Not ideal freedom but more then than now. Refuted again.

    “Social norms in the 1940s and early 1950s were much more rigid than today.”

    Norms are not equivalent to the oppression of the state. Several commenters have pointed out above that many people lived as they chose without regard to the approval of others. Disapproval has rarely stopped people doing what they want. You make far to big a deal of social mores to boost your empty case.

    “We are richer, much richer”

    In overall terms. But few families can get by on one wage alone let alone get on the housing chain.

    “I had assumed that BDSM and rape-fantasies were more than adequately catered for on the web. I gather I might be taking some risks with the law if you asked me to nail your dick to plank; but, on reflection, I’d take the risk in the circumstances – just for you!”

    What is on the Web–itself under continuous attack by wannabe censors–has nothing to do with the point I made. Which you understand very well–unless you are also among the ranks of those who have been educated beyond your intelligence. Try expressing public support for non-PC viewpoints and see what happens. Don’t worry about dicks Theo–try to nail some arguments where you address the points made rather than your own woolly mental processes.

    “How is this a diminution of freedom? Just be careful whom you shag. And wear a condom.2″
    Are you feeling unwell Theo? Trying to write with a migraine or something? A female deceiver who intends to bleed you for maintenance etc is not likely to tell you she is not on the pill just after she has already told you that she is. Or perhaps the women you mix with–even the bad ones–are that dumb. Perhaps it is just that you have an infallible nose for knowing who is good or bad. Yes that must be it.

    ” If you don’t want a woman to abort your potential child, marry her.”

    Dear God –the perfect answer–given to us on a plate. Why have none of the fools out there thought of that before. What genius in human guise! Confucius must have had you in mind when he was defining the Superior Man.

    “For a start, inflation is nearly zero”

    You must send your servants out for the shopping Theo. That or zero is trying to sneak up on its brother numbers. No it is hyper-inflation-yet–but there is a steady and sustained climb in costs everywhere.

    “new businesses are opening all the time, often by people who left school with few qualifications. ”

    I have also noted many new businesses started by the ill-educated and ill-prepared. I have also walked past the shut-up remains of same a few months later. Your Horatio Alger stories maybe valid Theo–but if that is the case. There are always success stories even in the worst shitholes. But that is not the general picture despite the gloss you try to put on it with your anecdotes.

    “Then don’t do a crap course at a crap university2

    You have a small point there. But unless you have talent and aptitude for science and maths, crap and the leftist gauntlet is all there is. is all there is.

    “If two working parents struggle to provide for two kids, perhaps they should have had only one?”

    Doesn’t answer my point and is facetious and fatuous at the same time. If we are so much richer how come 2 kids on one average wage was do-able 50 years ago but not in these oh-so-much-more-prosperous times?

    “And those two working parents doubtless spend a lot of money on things that your pater would probably have thought inessential. That said, they are richer, healthier, better housed, and so freer – particularly the wife – than your parents probably were.”

    So Sky Tv and I-Phones are the reason that two wages are needed. The people of our richer, freer wonderland are so pigshit thick that they need two wages to procure gadgetry. Yeah right.
    There is more junk to buy and med-tech may have made some improvements but that is not being freer –outside of your arbitrary claim that it is.

    “and I have also made a point of employing any able soul, regardless of background, providing they were willing to work hard.”

    How very noble of you.

    Do you ever read your own fact-free rants?

  43. Tim–will you for the love of God get the automatic preview function back so long screeds can be reviewed without having to scroll back and forth. Have a look at the manual or ring the hosters (or hostess) if that helps.

    Please.

  44. The simplistic, even romantic, notion that people round the world would all play nicely and trade fairly, as posited by Tim Worstall and knocked on the head by Joseph Chamberlain one hundred and fifty years ago, assumes that once you cease or never start home production and rely on another country for cheap imports, this system will go on forever without any pressure by the country that provides the imports. The answer to this is a short word :oil.
    A Distributist writer called Penty wrote a book about Post Industrialism in the inter-war years and pointed out that all the economic benefits of cheap oil would be negated by the wars necessary to preserve its supply.We are still paying that price and the wars are becoming guerrilla and coming home to roost.
    The old way of dealing with this security of supply problem was by Imperialism, which Chamberlain sought to make mutually advantageous to all the countries involved by a system of preferential tariffs ensuring no change of government could suddenly threaten supply to any partner.The whole Commonwealth could moreover ,mobilise and stand together to face down threats The Americans thought this a major obstacle to their plans for world trade and did all they could to eliminate it actually during the war and even before entering with the Atlantic Charter.
    @Mr Ecks. So you are beginning to notice that since Attlee’s time young people can no longer afford houses and to bring up children .And you go potty at any interference with a laissez faire system such as a land value tax! But the founder of laissez faire Adam Smith was a definitive land taxer.

  45. “@Mr Ecks. So you are beginning to notice that since Attlee’s time young people can no longer afford houses and to bring up children .And you go potty at any interference with a laissez faire system such as a land value tax! But the founder of laissez faire Adam Smith was a definitive land taxer”

    I don’t care if he was a cross-dressing sodomiser of Santa’s Elves. None of your drivel has anything to do with the real world. Except for the fact that it is statism in general and socialism in particular that is the reason that one formerly reasonable wage can no long support a wife, two kids and a house/car etc as it did in the 60s. And bollocks to land tax.

    Giveover for Christ’s sake.

  46. ME
    And a hearty Christmas bollox to you too.You are so thick that you cannot see that the cheap housing has disappeared due to laissez faire market forces.Even Adam Smith saw that the natural course of economic events would put up the price of land and negate any commercial progress.(Henry George summarised this argument in the title of his book Progess and Poverty.) You might also investigate Diogenes’ enviably eloquent support for LVT on this site. Tim Worstall is also a supporter of Land Value Tax.
    BTW Statism does not exist.It is an example of “reification ” .The nearest meaningful term is probably “government” You need to read some linguistic philosophy; In fact you need to get yourself an education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *